ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2019
Randomization Tests for Single Case Designs with Rapidly Alternating Conditions: An Analysis of
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meta-Analytic Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Behavior Science Research.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Quantitative Techniques and Graphical Representations for Interpreting Results from Alternating Treatment Design.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Introduction to the Special Section: Translating Advanced Quantitative Techniques for Single-Case Experimental Design Data.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- How to Be RAD: Repeated Acquisition Design Features that Enhance Internal and External Validity.Perspectives on behavior science · 2021Article
- Randomized Single-Case Experimental Designs in Healthcare Research: What, Why, and How?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Randomization tests as alternative analysis methods for behavior-analytic data.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2019Article
- An Overview of Scientific Reproducibility: Consideration of Relevant Issues for Behavior Science/Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
- Predict, Control, and Replicate to Understand: How Statistics Can Foster the Fundamental Goals of Science.Perspectives on behavior science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two common barriers to applying statistical tests to single-case experiments are that single-case data often violate the assumptions of parametric tests and that random assignment is inconsistent with the logic of single-case design. However, in the case of randomization tests applied to single-case experiments with rapidly alternating conditions, neither the statistical assumptions nor the logic of the designs are violated. To examine the utility of randomization tests for single-case data, we collected a sample of published articles including alternating treatments or multielement designs with random or semi-random condition sequences. We extracted data from graphs and used randomization tests to estimate the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the results in the experiment by chance alone (i.e.,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.