通过有向无环图发现单例实验设计中的内部有效性威胁和操作问题

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Educational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1007/s10648-024-09962-2
Garret J. Hall, Sophia Putzeys, Thomas R. Kratochwill, Joel R. Levin
{"title":"通过有向无环图发现单例实验设计中的内部有效性威胁和操作问题","authors":"Garret J. Hall, Sophia Putzeys, Thomas R. Kratochwill, Joel R. Levin","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09962-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have a long history in clinical and educational disciplines. One underdeveloped area in advancing SCED design and analysis is understanding the process of how internal validity threats and operational concerns are avoided or mitigated. Two strategies to ameliorate such issues in SCED involve replication and randomization. Although replication and randomization are indispensable tools in improving the internal validity of SCEDs, little attention has been paid to (a) why this is the case; or (b) the ways in which these design features are not immune from internal validity threats and operational concerns. In the current paper, we describe the use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to better understand, discover, and mitigate internal validity threats and operational concerns in SCEDs. DAGs are a tool for visualizing causal relations among variables and can help researchers identify both causal and noncausal relations among their variables according to specific algorithms. We introduce the use of DAGs in SCEDs to prompt applied researchers to conceptualize internal validity threats and operational concerns, even when an SCED includes replication and randomization in the design structure. We discuss the general principles of causal inference in conventional “group” designs and in SCEDs, the unique factors impacting SCEDs, and how DAGs can be incorporated into SCEDs. We also discuss the limitations of DAGs applied to SCEDs, as well as future directions for this area of work.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discovering Internal Validity Threats and Operational Concerns in Single-Case Experimental Designs Through Directed Acyclic Graphs\",\"authors\":\"Garret J. Hall, Sophia Putzeys, Thomas R. Kratochwill, Joel R. Levin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09962-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have a long history in clinical and educational disciplines. One underdeveloped area in advancing SCED design and analysis is understanding the process of how internal validity threats and operational concerns are avoided or mitigated. Two strategies to ameliorate such issues in SCED involve replication and randomization. Although replication and randomization are indispensable tools in improving the internal validity of SCEDs, little attention has been paid to (a) why this is the case; or (b) the ways in which these design features are not immune from internal validity threats and operational concerns. In the current paper, we describe the use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to better understand, discover, and mitigate internal validity threats and operational concerns in SCEDs. DAGs are a tool for visualizing causal relations among variables and can help researchers identify both causal and noncausal relations among their variables according to specific algorithms. We introduce the use of DAGs in SCEDs to prompt applied researchers to conceptualize internal validity threats and operational concerns, even when an SCED includes replication and randomization in the design structure. We discuss the general principles of causal inference in conventional “group” designs and in SCEDs, the unique factors impacting SCEDs, and how DAGs can be incorporated into SCEDs. We also discuss the limitations of DAGs applied to SCEDs, as well as future directions for this area of work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09962-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09962-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

单例实验设计(SCED)在临床和教育学科中有着悠久的历史。推进 SCED 设计和分析的一个欠发达领域是了解如何避免或减轻内部有效性威胁和操作问题的过程。在 SCED 中,改善此类问题的两个策略涉及复制和随机化。尽管复制和随机化是提高 SCED 内部效度不可或缺的工具,但人们很少关注 (a) 为什么会出现这种情况;或 (b) 这些设计特征如何避免内部效度威胁和操作问题。在本文中,我们介绍了如何使用有向无环图(DAG)来更好地理解、发现和减轻 SCED 中的内部有效性威胁和操作问题。DAG 是一种可视化变量间因果关系的工具,可帮助研究人员根据特定算法识别变量间的因果关系和非因果关系。我们介绍了 DAG 在 SCED 中的应用,以促使应用研究人员将内部有效性威胁和操作问题概念化,即使 SCED 在设计结构中包含复制和随机化。我们讨论了传统 "分组 "设计和 SCED 中因果推论的一般原则、影响 SCED 的独特因素以及如何将 DAG 纳入 SCED。我们还讨论了 DAG 应用于 SCED 的局限性,以及该领域未来的工作方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Discovering Internal Validity Threats and Operational Concerns in Single-Case Experimental Designs Through Directed Acyclic Graphs

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have a long history in clinical and educational disciplines. One underdeveloped area in advancing SCED design and analysis is understanding the process of how internal validity threats and operational concerns are avoided or mitigated. Two strategies to ameliorate such issues in SCED involve replication and randomization. Although replication and randomization are indispensable tools in improving the internal validity of SCEDs, little attention has been paid to (a) why this is the case; or (b) the ways in which these design features are not immune from internal validity threats and operational concerns. In the current paper, we describe the use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to better understand, discover, and mitigate internal validity threats and operational concerns in SCEDs. DAGs are a tool for visualizing causal relations among variables and can help researchers identify both causal and noncausal relations among their variables according to specific algorithms. We introduce the use of DAGs in SCEDs to prompt applied researchers to conceptualize internal validity threats and operational concerns, even when an SCED includes replication and randomization in the design structure. We discuss the general principles of causal inference in conventional “group” designs and in SCEDs, the unique factors impacting SCEDs, and how DAGs can be incorporated into SCEDs. We also discuss the limitations of DAGs applied to SCEDs, as well as future directions for this area of work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Exploring Educational Approaches to Addressing Misleading Visualizations Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis Using Decoding Measures to Identify Reading Difficulties: A Meta-analysis on English as a First Language Learners and English Language Learners Interventions to Teacher Well-Being and Burnout A Scoping Review Examining the Effects of Family-Implemented Literacy Interventions for School-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1