CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Studies With Staggered Starts: Multiple Baseline Designs and Group-Randomized Trials

Open access
Rhoda, Dale A., Murray, David M., Andridge, Rebecca R., Pennell, Michael L., Hade, Erinn M.·2011·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.2011.300264PMC PMC3222403
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives. Multiple baseline designs (MBDs) have been suggested as alternatives to group-randomized trials (GRT). We reviewed structural features of MBDs and considered their potential effectiveness in public health research. We also reviewed the effect of staggered starts on statistical power. Methods. We reviewed the MBD literature to identify key structural features, recent suggestions that MBDs be adopted in public health research, and the literature on power in GRTs with staggered starts. We also computed power for MBDs and GRTs. Results. The features that have contributed to the success of small MBDs in some fields are not likely to translate well to public health research. MBDs can be more powerful than GRTs under some conditions, but those conditions involve assumptions that require careful evaluation in practice. Conclusions. MBDs will often serve better as a complement of rather than as an alternative to GRTs. GRTs may employ staggered starts for logistical or ethical reasons, but this will always increase their duration and will often increase their cost.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2011.300264

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The variation between participants in baseline length offers the possibility to differentiate between time- and experimental effects of the treatment and is recommended in the early phases of treatment development.

    “The variation between participants in baseline length offers the possibility to differentiate between time-and experimental effects of the treatment and is recommended in the early phases of treatment development (Rhoda, Murray, Andridge, Pennell & Hade, 2011).”

    From Exposure‐based cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety related to asthma: A feasibility study with multivariate baseline design. (2020) · cites this paper as Rhoda, Murray, Andridge, Pennell & Hade, 2011

    The Results and Discussion section says staggered intervention starts across groups can help distinguish intervention effects from changes caused by a single external event. It discusses variation between groups rather than individual participants, and does not recommend the design specifically for early phases of treatment development. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [1]Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002 [Google Scholar]
  2. [2]Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London: Arnold; 2000 [Google Scholar]
  3. [3]Murray D. Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998 [Google Scholar]
  4. [4]Biglan A, Ary D, Wagenaar AC. The value of interrupted time-series experiments for community intervention research. Prev Sci. 2000;1(1):31–49 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [5]Hawkins NG, Sanson-Fisher RW, Shakeshaft A, D'Este C, Green LW. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(2):162–168 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. [7]The Gambia Hepatitis Study Group The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study. Cancer Res. 1987;47(21):5782–5787 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. [9]Baer DM, Wolf MM, Risley TR. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968;1(1):91–97 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [10]Barlow DH, Hersen M. Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon Press; 1984 [Google Scholar]
  9. [11]Barlow DH, Nock M, Hersen M. Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior for Change. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson; /Allyn and Bacon; 2009 [Google Scholar]
  10. [12]Hersen M, Barlow DH. Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change. New York: Pergamon Press; 1976 [Google Scholar]
  11. [13]Kazdin AE. Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings. New York: Oxford University Press; 1982 [Google Scholar]
  12. [14]Kazdin AE. Research Design in Clinical Psychology. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1998 [Google Scholar]
  13. [15]Sidman M. Tactics of Scientific Research. New York: Basic Books; 1960 [Google Scholar]
  14. [16]Mertens D. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009 [Google Scholar]
  15. [18]Kennedy C. Single-Case Designs for Educational Research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2005 [Google Scholar]
  16. [19]Tawney JW, Gast DL. Single Subject Research in Special Education. Columbus, OH: Merrill; 1984 [Google Scholar]
  17. [20]Matyas TA, Greenwood KM. Visual analysis of single-case time series: effects of variability, serial dependence, and magnitude of intervention effects. J Appl Behav Anal. 1990;23:341–351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. [22]Bulté I, Onghena P. Randomization tests for multiple baseline designs: an extension of the SCRT-R package. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(2):477–485 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. [23]Ferron JM, Bell BA, Hess MR, Rendina-Gobioff G, Hibbard ST. Making treatment effect inferences from multiple-baseline data: the utility of multilevel modeling approaches. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(2):372–384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. [24]Marascuilo LA, Busk PL. Combining statistics for multiple-baseline AB and replicated ABAB designs across subjects. Behav Assess. 1988;10(1):1–28 [Google Scholar]
  21. [25]Brown CH, Wyman PA, Guo J, Pena J. Dynamic wait-listed designs for randomized trials: new designs for prevention of youth suicide. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):259–271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. [26]Hayes RJ, Moulton LH. Cluster Randomised Trials. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009 [Google Scholar]
  23. [27]Hussey MA, Hughes JP. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):182–191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. [28]Kazdin AE. Methodological and interpretive problems of single-case experimental designs. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1978;46(4):629–642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. [29]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988 [Google Scholar]
  26. [30]Fishbein M. Great expectations, or do we ask too much from community-level interventions? Am J Public Health. 1996;86(8 pt 1):1075–1076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. [31]Snyder LB, Hamilton MA. Meta-analysis of U.S. health campaign effects on behavior: emphasize enforcement, exposure, and new information, and beware the secular trend. : Hornik R, Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002:357–383 [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhoda, D. A., Murray, D. M., Andridge, R. R., Pennell, M. L., & Hade, E. M.
Affiliations
Battelle (US)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2011-11
Volume
101
Issue
11
Pages
2164-2169
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.2011.300264
PMC
PMC3222403
OpenAlex
W2088537809
Cited by
69
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA105632)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
multiple baseline design, group-randomized trials, statistical power, public health research, research design comparison
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Public Health, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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