The Relationship Between Visual Analysis and Five Statistical Analyses in a Simple AB Single-Case Research Design

Daniel F. Brossart, Elizabeth A. Olson, Lakshmi Mahadevan

Behavior Modification · 2006 · 216 citations · 86 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The study examines practical issues for single‑case researchers who use visual analysis and may consider supplemental statistical techniques. It aims to determine the typical effect‑size range of these analytic techniques, assess their agreement with visual‑analysis judgments, and evaluate how autocorrelation influences interpretation. The authors compared five analytic techniques to visual‑analysis judgments made by 45 doctoral students and faculty on 35 fabricated AB‑design graphs. The study discusses implications for researchers and practitioners using single‑case designs.

Abstract

This study explored some practical issues for single-case researchers who rely on visual analysis of graphed data, but who also may consider supplemental use of promising statistical analysis techniques. The study sought to answer three major questions: (a) What is a typical range of effect sizes from these analytic techniques for data from "effective interventions"? (b) How closely do results from these same analytic techniques concur with visual-analysis-based judgments of effective interventions? and (c) What role does autocorrelation play in interpretation of these analytic results? To answer these questions, five analytic techniques were compared with the judgments of 45 doctoral students and faculty, who rated intervention effectiveness from visual analysis of 35 fabricated AB design graphs. Implications for researchers and practitioners using single-case designs are discussed.

References

86