估计单例实验设计中基线到治疗阶段方差的效应大小:贝叶斯模拟研究

L. Barnard‐Brak, Laci Watkins, D. Richman
{"title":"估计单例实验设计中基线到治疗阶段方差的效应大小:贝叶斯模拟研究","authors":"L. Barnard‐Brak, Laci Watkins, D. Richman","doi":"10.1080/17489539.2020.1738625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current study examined the relation between the ratio of baseline to treatment sessions and how differences in this ratio can influence estimation of treatment effect size from temporally adjacent baseline and treatment phases of any single-case experimental design (SCED). The current study describes how Bayesian statistical analyses can be used to aggregate treatment outcomes across subjects to meta-analyze SCED data. One-third of all A versus B comparisons (based upon simulated average values) did have a 10% or more bias, with the vast majority of the bias being substantially fewer data points in baseline compared to treatment sessions. SCEDs require relatively steady state responding; thus researchers may run relatively more B sessions compared to A sessions in the course of visually inspecting graphically depicted data. When the standard deviation for the number of A sessions was approximately twice as large or more than the B phase standard deviation, the degree of AB sessions ratio bias decreased substantially. SCED practitioners can use results of the current study to determine the potential benefits of running additional baseline or treatment sessions.","PeriodicalId":39977,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention","volume":"32 1","pages":"69 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating effect size with respect to variance in baseline to treatment phases of single-case experimental designs: A Bayesian simulation study\",\"authors\":\"L. Barnard‐Brak, Laci Watkins, D. Richman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17489539.2020.1738625\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The current study examined the relation between the ratio of baseline to treatment sessions and how differences in this ratio can influence estimation of treatment effect size from temporally adjacent baseline and treatment phases of any single-case experimental design (SCED). The current study describes how Bayesian statistical analyses can be used to aggregate treatment outcomes across subjects to meta-analyze SCED data. One-third of all A versus B comparisons (based upon simulated average values) did have a 10% or more bias, with the vast majority of the bias being substantially fewer data points in baseline compared to treatment sessions. SCEDs require relatively steady state responding; thus researchers may run relatively more B sessions compared to A sessions in the course of visually inspecting graphically depicted data. When the standard deviation for the number of A sessions was approximately twice as large or more than the B phase standard deviation, the degree of AB sessions ratio bias decreased substantially. SCED practitioners can use results of the current study to determine the potential benefits of running additional baseline or treatment sessions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"69 - 81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2020.1738625\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2020.1738625","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本研究探讨了基线与治疗阶段的比率之间的关系,以及该比率的差异如何影响从时间上相邻的基线和任何单例实验设计(SCED)的治疗效果大小的估计。目前的研究描述了如何使用贝叶斯统计分析来汇总不同受试者的治疗结果,从而对SCED数据进行meta分析。三分之一的A与B比较(基于模拟平均值)确实有10%或更多的偏差,绝大多数偏差是基线数据点比治疗期少得多。sced需要相对稳定的状态响应;因此,在视觉检查图形描述数据的过程中,研究人员可能会运行相对较多的B会话而不是A会话。当A阶段数量的标准差约为B阶段标准差的两倍或更多时,AB阶段比例偏差的程度显著降低。商业及经济发展局的从业人员可以利用目前的研究结果来确定进行额外的基线或治疗的潜在益处。
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
Estimating effect size with respect to variance in baseline to treatment phases of single-case experimental designs: A Bayesian simulation study
Abstract The current study examined the relation between the ratio of baseline to treatment sessions and how differences in this ratio can influence estimation of treatment effect size from temporally adjacent baseline and treatment phases of any single-case experimental design (SCED). The current study describes how Bayesian statistical analyses can be used to aggregate treatment outcomes across subjects to meta-analyze SCED data. One-third of all A versus B comparisons (based upon simulated average values) did have a 10% or more bias, with the vast majority of the bias being substantially fewer data points in baseline compared to treatment sessions. SCEDs require relatively steady state responding; thus researchers may run relatively more B sessions compared to A sessions in the course of visually inspecting graphically depicted data. When the standard deviation for the number of A sessions was approximately twice as large or more than the B phase standard deviation, the degree of AB sessions ratio bias decreased substantially. SCED practitioners can use results of the current study to determine the potential benefits of running additional baseline or treatment sessions.
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
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention (EBCAI) brings together professionals who work in clinical and educational practice as well as researchers from all disciplines to promote evidence-based practice (EBP) in serving individuals with communication impairments. The primary aims of EBCAI are to: Promote evidence-based practice (EBP) in communication assessment and intervention; Appraise the latest and best communication assessment and intervention studies so as to facilitate the use of research findings in clinical and educational practice; Provide a forum for discussions that advance EBP; and Disseminate research on EBP. We target speech-language pathologists, special educators, regular educators, applied behavior analysts, clinical psychologists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists who serve children or adults with communication impairments.
期刊最新文献
Illusions of literacy in nonspeaking autistic people: a response to Jaswal, Lampi & Stockwell, 2024 Childhood-Onset Fluency Disorder with marked ingressive speech: a prospective case study Initial results of single-case design study indicate parent training on naturalistic behavioral intervention conducted via telehealth improves parent fidelity and collateral child mands, tacts and intraverbals Preliminary evidence a behavior chain interruption strategy is a promising approach for teaching functional mands to individuals with deaf-blindness and an intellectual disability Can message-passing anecdotes tell us anything about the validity of RPM and S2C?
×
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