Cited by 54Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMental Health Research TopicsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Single-subject research in psychiatry: facts and fictions

Open access
Zuidersma, Marij, Riese, Harriëtte, Snippe, Evelien, Booij, Sanne H., Wichers, Marieke, Bos, Elisabeth H.·2020·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Scientific evidence in the field of psychiatry is mainly derived from group-based ("nomothetic") studies that yield group-aggregated results, while often the need is to answer questions that apply to individuals. Particularly in the presence of great inter-individual differences and temporal complexities, information at the individual-person level may be valuable for personalized treatment decisions, individual predictions and diagnostics. The single-subject study design can be used to make inferences about individual persons. Yet, the single-subject study is not often used in the field of psychiatry. We believe that this is because of a lack of awareness of its value rather than a lack of usefulness or feasibility. In the present paper, we aimed to resolve some common misconceptions and beliefs about single-subject studies by discussing some commonly heard "facts and fictions." We also discuss some situations in which the single-subject study is more or less appropriate, and the potential of combining single-subject and group-based study designs into one study. While not intending to plea for single-subject studies at the expense of group-based studies, we hope to increase awareness of the value of single-subject research by informing the reader about several aspects of this design, resolving misunderstanding, and providing references for further reading.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.539777

Cites

116 of 116 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?

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

2 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [54]Velicer WF Molenaar P Time series analysis. Research methods in psychology. In: Schinka J, Velicer WF, editors. Volume 2 of Handbook of Psychology (I. B. Weiner, Editor-in-Chief). 2nd ed New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons (2013). p. 628– 60.
  2. [66]Vandenbroucke JP. De N = 1 trial, de meest ideale onderzoeksopzet, die te weinig wordt gebruikt. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. (2006) 150: 2794– 5. 17216726
  3. [70]OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available online at: https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf (assessed January 13, 2020).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zuidersma, M., Riese, H., Snippe, E., Booij, S. H., Wichers, M., & Bos, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Zuidersma, Marij
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2020-11-13
Volume
11
Pages
539777-539777
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3100352076
Cited by
54
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 5
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Research Council
  • Stichting tot Steun Vereniging tot Christelijke Verzorging van Geestes- en Zenuwzieken
  • Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
single-case experimental design, personalized treatment, personalized medicine, individual differences, personalized prediction, psychiatric diagnosis

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