Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26609876›Full record

ArticleMultivariate behavioral research2015

Comparing Visual and Statistical Analysis in Single-Case Studies Using Published Studies.

Magadalena Harrington, Wayne F Velicer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Multivariate behavioral research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Magadalena Harringtona University of Rhode Island Cancer Prevention Research Center.
Wayne F Velicera University of Rhode Island Cancer Prevention Research Center.

Funding

Tailored Interventions to Prevent Substance AbuseR01DA020112 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND · PI VELICER, WAYNE F · 2006 to 2010
$2.9M
NIDA NIH HHS DA020112NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA020112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Little is known about the extent to which interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) can be applied to short, single-case study designs and whether those applications produce results consistent with visual analysis (VA). This article examines the extent to which ITSA can be applied to single-case study designs and compares the results based on two methods: ITSA and VA, using papers published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis in 2010. The study was made possible by the development of software called UnGraph®, which facilitates the recovery of raw data from the graphs. ITSA was successfully applied to 94% of the examined graphs with the number of observations ranging from 8 to 136. Moderate to high lag-1 autocorrelations (>.50) were found for 46% of the data series. Effect sizes similar to group-level Cohen's d were identified based on the tertile distribution. Effects ranging from 0.00 to 0.99 were classified as small, those ranging from 1.00 to 2.49 as medium, and large effect sizes were defined as 2.50 or greater. Comparison of the conclusions from VA and ITSA had a low level of agreement (Kappa =.14, accounting for the agreement expected by chance). The results demonstrate that ITSA can be broadly implemented in applied behavior analysis research. These two methods should be viewed as complementary and used concurrently.

Indexed as

Research DesignBehavioral ResearchHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26609876
PMCPMC4677800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.