Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33104956›Full record

SynthesisBehavior research methods2021

A systematic review of applied single-case research published between 2016 and 2018: Study designs, randomization, data aspects, and data analysis.

René Tanious, Patrick Onghena

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Behavior research methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pediatric Tube Weaning: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Contributing to Success.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The role of single case experimental designs in evidence creation in rehabilitation.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Defining and assessing immediacy in single-case experimental designs.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  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.

René TaniousFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Methodology of Educational Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3762, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. rene.tanious@kuleuven.be.
Patrick OnghenaFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Methodology of Educational Sciences Research Group, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3762, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have become a popular research methodology in educational science, psychology, and beyond. The growing popularity has been accompanied by the development of specific guidelines for the conduct and analysis of SCEDs. In this paper, we examine recent practices in the conduct and analysis of SCEDs by systematically reviewing applied SCEDs published over a period of three years (2016-2018). Specifically, we were interested in which designs are most frequently used and how common randomization in the study design is, which data aspects applied single-case researchers analyze, and which analytical methods are used. The systematic review of 423 studies suggests that the multiple baseline design continues to be the most widely used design and that the difference in central tendency level is by far most popular in SCED effect evaluation. Visual analysis paired with descriptive statistics is the most frequently used method of data analysis. However, inferential statistical methods and the inclusion of randomization in the study design are not uncommon. We discuss these results in light of the findings of earlier systematic reviews and suggest future directions for the development of SCED methodology.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisResearch DesignHumansRandom AllocationData aspectsRandomizationSingle-case experimental designsStatistical analysisSystematic reviewVisual analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.