The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generalizing From Single Case Studies
Abstract
Although studies of single cases occur throughout research fields, they are only recently beginning to appear in evaluation. These studies are difficult to generalize from, because statistical techniques do not apply. This article offers a variety of suggestions for logically analyzing the relationship between a single case and a population so that reasonable generalizations may be possible. Methodologies used by clinicians and by court justices are also examined for their relevance to evaluation methodology.
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
When shall we use our heads instead of the formula?
Meehl, P. E. (1957) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047554 · Cited by 310
Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials
Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728067 · Cited by 292
Cited by
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807299526 · Cited by 552
Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2014) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.10.002 · Cited by 98
Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research Reviews
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1982) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618 · Cited by 93
Pearson, M. L., Albon, S. P., & Hubball, H. (2015) · The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2015.3.12 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Kennedy, M. M.
- Venue
- Evaluation Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1979-11
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 661-678
- ISSN
- 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2072077227
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.63
- 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
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.
