Masked Visual Analysis: Minimizing Type I Error in Visually Guided Single-Case Design for Communication Disorders.

Purpose Single-case experimental designs are widely used to study interventions for communication disorders. Traditionally, single-case experiments follow a response-guided approach, where design decisions during the study are based on participants' observed patterns of behavior. However, this approach has been criticized for its high rate of Type I error. In masked visual analysis (MVA), response-guided decisions are made by a researcher who is blinded to participants' identities and treatment assignments. MVA also makes it possible to conduct a hypothesis test assessing the significance of treatment effects. Method This tutorial describes the principles of MVA, including both how experiments can be set up and how results can be used for hypothesis testing. We then report a case study showing how MVA was deployed in a multiple-baseline across-subjects study investigating treatment for residual errors affecting rhotics. Strengths and weaknesses of MVA are discussed. Conclusions Given their important role in the evidence base that informs clinical decision making, it is critical for single-case experimental studies to be conducted in a way that allows researchers to draw valid inferences. As a method that can increase the rigor of single-case studies while preserving the benefits of a response-guided approach, MVA warrants expanded attention from researchers in communication disorders.

[1]  Judith A Gierut,et al.  Effect Size for Single-Subject Design in Phonological Treatment. , 2015, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  Single-Case Intervention Research: Methodological and Statistical Advances , 2014 .

[3]  J B Tomblin,et al.  Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity with language impairment. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  J. Levin,et al.  A Monte Carlo evaluation of masked visual analysis in response-guided versus fixed-criteria multiple-baseline designs. , 2017, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[5]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[6]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Repeated labeling using multiple noisy labelers , 2012, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[7]  Maria I. Grigos,et al.  A multidimensional investigation of children's /r/ productions: perceptual, ultrasound, and acoustic measures. , 2013, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[8]  Effect size in clinical phonology , 2011, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[9]  Cynthia K Thompson,et al.  Single subject controlled experiments in aphasia: the science and the state of the science. , 2006, Journal of communication disorders.

[10]  D M Ruscello,et al.  Visual feedback in treatment of residual phonological disorders. , 1995, Journal of communication disorders.

[11]  Randall R. Robey,et al.  Evaluating Single-Subject Treatment Research: Lessons Learned from the Aphasia Literature , 2006, Neuropsychology Review.

[12]  S. Fletcher,et al.  Teaching consonants to profoundly hearing-impaired speakers using palatometry. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  R. R. Robey A five-phase model for clinical-outcome research. , 2004, Journal of communication disorders.

[14]  Richard I. Parker,et al.  The Relationship Between Visual Analysis and Five Statistical Analyses in a Simple AB Single-Case Research Design , 2006, Behavior modification.

[15]  K P Kearns,et al.  Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part II: Design selection and arrangement of experimental phases. , 1986, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[16]  Elaine R. Hitchcock,et al.  Enhancing generalisation in biofeedback intervention using the challenge point framework: A case study , 2015, Clinical linguistics & phonetics.

[17]  Leija V. McReynolds,et al.  Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders , 1983 .

[18]  S. Rvachew,et al.  Developmental Phonological Disorders: Foundations of Clinical Practice , 2012 .

[19]  Erin E. Barton,et al.  Comparison of Overlap Methods for Quantitatively Synthesizing Single-Subject Data , 2010 .

[20]  Leija V. McReynolds,et al.  Flexibility of Single-Subject Experimental Designs. Part III , 1986 .

[21]  Robert H. Horner,et al.  Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards , 2013 .

[22]  John M. Ferron,et al.  Single-case permutation and randomization statistical tests: Present status, promising new developments. , 2014 .

[23]  T. Matyas,et al.  Visual analysis of single-case time series: Effects of variability, serial dependence, and magnitude of intervention effects. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[24]  Joe Reichle,et al.  Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. , 2012, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[25]  Peter F. Halpin,et al.  Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: a validation study. , 2015, Journal of communication disorders.

[26]  John Ferron,et al.  Tests for the Visual Analysis of Response-Guided Multiple-Baseline Data , 2006 .

[27]  P. Mccabe,et al.  Ultrasound visual feedback treatment and practice variability for residual speech sound errors. , 2014, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[28]  Peter F. Halpin,et al.  Direction of attentional focus in biofeedback treatment for /r/ misarticulation. , 2016, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[29]  J. Levin,et al.  Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: randomization to the rescue. , 2010, Psychological methods.

[30]  G L Culton,et al.  Speech disorders among college freshmen: a 13-year survey. , 1986, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[31]  N. Landi,et al.  Ultrasound biofeedback treatment for persisting childhood apraxia of speech. , 2013, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[32]  Robert H. Horner,et al.  Constructing single-case research designs: Logic and options. , 2014 .

[33]  Tara McAllister Byun,et al.  Retroflex versus bunched in treatment for rhotic misarticulation: evidence from ultrasound biofeedback intervention. , 2014, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[34]  Randall R. Robey,et al.  Review: Single-subject clinical-outcome research: designs, data, effect sizes, and analyses , 1999 .

[35]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  The Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Research , 1987 .

[36]  Alan E. Kazdin,et al.  Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings , 2010 .

[37]  Tara McAllister Byun,et al.  Investigating the use of traditional and spectral biofeedback approaches to intervention for /r/ misarticulation. , 2012, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[38]  Lyndsey Nickels,et al.  Optimising the design of intervention studies: critiques and ways forward , 2015 .

[39]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Principles of motor learning in treatment of motor speech disorders. , 2008, American journal of speech-language pathology.