Bottom-Up Analysis of Single-Case Research Designs

This paper defines and promotes the qualities of a “bottom-up” approach to single-case research (SCR) data analysis. Although “top-down” models, for example, multi-level or hierarchical linear models, are gaining momentum and have much to offer, interventionists should be cautious about analyses that are not easily understood, are not governed by a “wide lens” visual analysis, do not yield intuitive results, and remove the analysis process from the interventionist, who alone has intimate understanding of the design logic and resulting data patterns. “Bottom-up” analysis possesses benefits which fit well with SCR, including applicability to designs with few data points and few phases, customization of analyses based on design and data idiosyncrasies, conformation with visual analysis, and directly meaningful effect sizes. Examples are provided to illustrate these benefits of bottom-up analyses.

[1]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[2]  Wim Van Den Noortgate,et al.  The Aggregation of Single-Case Results Using Hierarchical Linear Models. , 2007 .

[3]  Joseph H Abramson,et al.  WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows): computer programs for epidemiologists , 2004, Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I.

[4]  Hariharan Swaminathan,et al.  A generalized least squares regression approach for computing effect sizes in single-case research: application examples. , 2011, Journal of school psychology.

[5]  M. Wolery,et al.  The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education , 2005 .

[6]  B. Gorman,et al.  Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: the case of the single case. , 1993, Behaviour research and therapy.

[7]  T. Scruggs,et al.  The utility of the PND statistic: a reply to Allison and Gorman. , 1994, Behaviour research and therapy.

[8]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  Effect Size in Single-Case Research: A Review of Nine Nonoverlap Techniques , 2011, Behavior modification.

[9]  Allison Gorman Faith,et al.  Meta-analysis of Single-Case Research , 2014 .

[10]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. , 2009, Behavior therapy.

[11]  T. Scruggs,et al.  Summarizing Single-Subject Research , 1998, Behavior modification.

[12]  Thomas E. Scruggs,et al.  How to Summarize Single-Participant Research: Ideas and Applications , 2001, The Meta-Analysis Research in Special Education.

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

[14]  Patrick Onghena,et al.  A multilevel meta-analysis of single-subject experimental design studies , 2008 .

[15]  B. Gorman,et al.  Design and Analysis of Single-Case Research , 1996 .

[16]  Julio Sánchez-Meca,et al.  Weighting by Inverse Variance or by Sample Size in Meta-Analysis: A Simulation Study , 1998 .

[17]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. , 2011, Behavior therapy.

[18]  J. McKean,et al.  Design Specification Issues in Time-Series Intervention Models , 2000 .

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

[20]  Julio Sánchez-Meca,et al.  Weighting by Inverse Variance or by Sample Size in Random-Effects Meta-Analysis , 2010 .

[21]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[22]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  Percentage of All Non-Overlapping Data (PAND) , 2007 .

[23]  Kimberly J. Vannest,et al.  A Simple Method to Control Positive Baseline Trend Within Data Nonoverlap , 2014 .

[24]  C. J. Schwarz,et al.  Sampling, Regression, Experimental Design and Analysis for Environmental Scientists, Biologists, and Resource Managers , 2011 .