单例研究中基线结果数据的测量程序和特征的检查。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Behavior Modification Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2019-08-02 DOI:10.1177/0145445519864264
James E Pustejovsky, Daniel M Swan, Kyle W English
{"title":"单例研究中基线结果数据的测量程序和特征的检查。","authors":"James E Pustejovsky,&nbsp;Daniel M Swan,&nbsp;Kyle W English","doi":"10.1177/0145445519864264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There has been growing interest in using statistical methods to analyze data and estimate effect size indices from studies that use single-case designs (SCDs), as a complement to traditional visual inspection methods. The validity of a statistical method rests on whether its assumptions are plausible representations of the process by which the data were collected, yet there is evidence that some assumptions-particularly regarding normality of error distributions-may be inappropriate for single-case data. To develop more appropriate modeling assumptions and statistical methods, researchers must attend to the features of real SCD data. In this study, we examine several features of SCDs with behavioral outcome measures in order to inform development of statistical methods. Drawing on a corpus of over 300 studies, including approximately 1,800 cases, from seven systematic reviews that cover a range of interventions and outcome constructs, we report the distribution of study designs, distribution of outcome measurement procedures, and features of baseline outcome data distributions for the most common types of measurements used in single-case research. We discuss implications for the development of more realistic assumptions regarding outcome distributions in SCD studies, as well as the design of Monte Carlo simulation studies evaluating the performance of statistical analysis techniques for SCD data.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0145445519864264","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Examination of Measurement Procedures and Characteristics of Baseline Outcome Data in Single-Case Research.\",\"authors\":\"James E Pustejovsky,&nbsp;Daniel M Swan,&nbsp;Kyle W English\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0145445519864264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There has been growing interest in using statistical methods to analyze data and estimate effect size indices from studies that use single-case designs (SCDs), as a complement to traditional visual inspection methods. The validity of a statistical method rests on whether its assumptions are plausible representations of the process by which the data were collected, yet there is evidence that some assumptions-particularly regarding normality of error distributions-may be inappropriate for single-case data. To develop more appropriate modeling assumptions and statistical methods, researchers must attend to the features of real SCD data. In this study, we examine several features of SCDs with behavioral outcome measures in order to inform development of statistical methods. Drawing on a corpus of over 300 studies, including approximately 1,800 cases, from seven systematic reviews that cover a range of interventions and outcome constructs, we report the distribution of study designs, distribution of outcome measurement procedures, and features of baseline outcome data distributions for the most common types of measurements used in single-case research. We discuss implications for the development of more realistic assumptions regarding outcome distributions in SCD studies, as well as the design of Monte Carlo simulation studies evaluating the performance of statistical analysis techniques for SCD data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0145445519864264\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519864264\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519864264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

作为传统目测方法的补充,人们对使用统计方法分析数据和估计单例设计(SCDs)研究的效应大小指数越来越感兴趣。统计方法的有效性取决于其假设是否合理地表示了收集数据的过程,然而有证据表明,一些假设——特别是关于误差分布的正态性——可能不适合单一情况的数据。为了开发更合适的建模假设和统计方法,研究人员必须注意实际SCD数据的特征。在这项研究中,我们通过行为结果测量来研究scd的几个特征,以便为统计方法的发展提供信息。根据涵盖一系列干预措施和结果构建的七个系统综述的300多项研究的语料库,包括大约1800例病例,我们报告了研究设计的分布、结果测量程序的分布以及单例研究中使用的最常见测量类型的基线结果数据分布的特征。我们讨论了关于SCD研究结果分布的更现实假设的发展的影响,以及评估SCD数据统计分析技术性能的蒙特卡罗模拟研究的设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An Examination of Measurement Procedures and Characteristics of Baseline Outcome Data in Single-Case Research.

There has been growing interest in using statistical methods to analyze data and estimate effect size indices from studies that use single-case designs (SCDs), as a complement to traditional visual inspection methods. The validity of a statistical method rests on whether its assumptions are plausible representations of the process by which the data were collected, yet there is evidence that some assumptions-particularly regarding normality of error distributions-may be inappropriate for single-case data. To develop more appropriate modeling assumptions and statistical methods, researchers must attend to the features of real SCD data. In this study, we examine several features of SCDs with behavioral outcome measures in order to inform development of statistical methods. Drawing on a corpus of over 300 studies, including approximately 1,800 cases, from seven systematic reviews that cover a range of interventions and outcome constructs, we report the distribution of study designs, distribution of outcome measurement procedures, and features of baseline outcome data distributions for the most common types of measurements used in single-case research. We discuss implications for the development of more realistic assumptions regarding outcome distributions in SCD studies, as well as the design of Monte Carlo simulation studies evaluating the performance of statistical analysis techniques for SCD data.

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
Behavior Modification
Behavior Modification PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
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.
期刊最新文献
Caregiver-Implemented Interventions to Improve Daily Living Skills for Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Editor's Farewell. Editor's Farewell. Development and Validation of an Assessment-Driven Behavioral Intervention for Primary Complex Motor Stereotypies in Young Children. Functional Communication Training in Schools: A Systematic Analysis of the Evidence for Ecological Validity.
×
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