The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical Comparison of Four Effect Sizes for Single-Subject Designs
Abstract
Controversy exists regarding appropriate methods for summarizing treatment outcomes for single-subject designs. Nonregression- and regression-based methods have been proposed to summarize the efficacy of single-subject interventions with proponents of both methods arguing for the superiority of their respective approaches. To compare findings for different single-subject effect sizes, 117 articles that targeted the reduction of problematic behaviors in 181 individuals diagnosed with autism were examined. Four effect sizes were calculated for each article: mean baseline reduction (MBLR), percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND), percentage of zero data (PZD), and one regression-based d statistic. Although each effect size indicated that behavioral treatment was effective, moderating variables were detected by the PZD effect size only. Pearson product-moment correlations indicated that effect sizes differed in statistical relationships to one another. In the present review, the regression-based d effect size did not improve the understanding of single-subject treatment outcomes when compared to nonregression effect sizes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Writing meta-analytic reviews.
Rosenthal, R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183 · Cited by 1,108
Cited by
Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards
Smith, J. D. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029312 · Cited by 630
“A range of concerns regarding single-case effect size calculation and interpretation is discussed in significant detail elsewhere (e.g., Campbell, 2004; Cohen, 1994; Ferron & Sentovich, 2002; Ferron & Ware, 1995; Kirk, 1996; Manolov & Solanas, 2008; Olive & Smith, 2005; Parker & Brossart, 2003;…”
BackgroundResultEvidence-based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence
Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x · Cited by 396
An Improved Rank Correlation Effect Size Statistic for Single-Case Designs: Baseline Corrected Tau
Tarlow, K. R. (2017) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445516676750 · Cited by 283
Pediatric Feeding Disorders: A Quantitative Synthesis of Treatment Outcomes
Sharp, W. G., Jaquess, D. L., Morton, J. F., & Herzinger, C. V. (2010) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-010-0079-7 · Cited by 282
Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau- U for single-case experimental designs
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Campbell, J. M.
- Venue
- Behavior Modification
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 234-246
- ISSN
- 0145-4455 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-4167
- OpenAlex
- W2052024182
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical Comparison of Four Effect Sizes for Single-Subject Designs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0145445503259264
- The paper
- Campbell, J. M. (2004). Statistical Comparison of Four Effect Sizes for Single-Subject Designs. Behavior Modification. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259264
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.