{"title":"Characteristics of Missing Data in Single-Case Experimental Designs: An Investigation of Published Data.","authors":"Orhan Aydin","doi":"10.1177/01454455231212265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have grown in popularity in the fields such as education, psychology, medicine, and rehabilitation. Although SCEDs are valid experimental designs for determining evidence-based practices, they encounter some challenges in analyses of data. One of these challenges, missing data, is likely to be occurred frequently in SCEDs research due to repeated measurements over time. Since missing data is a critical factor that can weaken the validity and generalizability of a study, it is important to determine the characteristics of missing data in SCEDs, which are especially conducted with a small number of participants. In this regard, this study aimed to describe missing data features in SCEDs studies in detail. To accomplish this goal, 465 published SCEDs studies within the recent 5 years in six journals were included in the investigation. The overall results showed that the prevalence of missing data among SCEDs articles in at least one phase, as at least one data point, was approximately 30%. In addition, the results indicated that the missing data rates were above 10% within most studies where missing data occurred. Although missing data is so common in SCEDs research, only a handful of studies (5%) have handled missing data; however, their methods are traditional. In analyzing SCEDs data, several methods are proposed considering missing data ratios in the literature. Therefore, missing data rates determined in this study results can shed light on the analyses of SCEDs data with proper methods by improving the validity and generalizability of study results.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":" ","pages":"182-215"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455231212265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have grown in popularity in the fields such as education, psychology, medicine, and rehabilitation. Although SCEDs are valid experimental designs for determining evidence-based practices, they encounter some challenges in analyses of data. One of these challenges, missing data, is likely to be occurred frequently in SCEDs research due to repeated measurements over time. Since missing data is a critical factor that can weaken the validity and generalizability of a study, it is important to determine the characteristics of missing data in SCEDs, which are especially conducted with a small number of participants. In this regard, this study aimed to describe missing data features in SCEDs studies in detail. To accomplish this goal, 465 published SCEDs studies within the recent 5 years in six journals were included in the investigation. The overall results showed that the prevalence of missing data among SCEDs articles in at least one phase, as at least one data point, was approximately 30%. In addition, the results indicated that the missing data rates were above 10% within most studies where missing data occurred. Although missing data is so common in SCEDs research, only a handful of studies (5%) have handled missing data; however, their methods are traditional. In analyzing SCEDs data, several methods are proposed considering missing data ratios in the literature. Therefore, missing data rates determined in this study results can shed light on the analyses of SCEDs data with proper methods by improving the validity and generalizability of study results.
期刊介绍:
For two decades, researchers and practitioners have turned to Behavior Modification for current scholarship on applied behavior modification. Starting in 1995, in addition to keeping you informed on assessment and modification techniques relevant to psychiatric, clinical, education, and rehabilitation settings, Behavior Modification revised and expanded its focus to include treatment manuals and program descriptions. With these features you can follow the process of clinical research and see how it can be applied to your own work. And, with Behavior Modification, successful clinical and administrative experts have an outlet for sharing their solutions in the field.