ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2020
Evaluating sources of baseline data using dual-criteria and conservative dual-criteria methods: A quantitative analysis.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of consecutive controlled case series studies.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Article
- Resurgence of Severe Challenging Behavior and Schedule Thinning with the Terminal Schedule Probe Method.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Assessment of Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Increases in Pain and Their Relationship to Functional Declines and Medication Changes.ACR open rheumatology · 2025Article
- Further Analysis of Advanced Quantitative Methods and Supplemental Interpretative Aids with Single-Case Experimental Designs.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scheithauer et al. (2020) recently demonstrated that differences in the source of baseline data extracted from a functional analysis (FA) may not affect subsequent clinical decision-making in comparison to a standard baseline. These outcomes warrant additional quantitative examination, as correspondence of visual analysis has sometimes been reported to be unreliable. In the current study, we quantified the occurrence of false positives within a dataset of FA and baseline data using the dual-criteria (DC) and conservative dual-criteria (CDC) methods. Results of this quantitative analysis suggest that false positives were more likely when using FA data (rather than original baseline data) as the initial treatment baseline. However, both sources of baseline data may have acceptably low levels of false positives for practical use. Overall, the findings provide preliminary quantitative support for the conclusion that determinations of effective treatment may be easily obtained using different sources of baseline data.
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.