ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2022
Examining and Enhancing the Methodological Quality of Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline Designs.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2022. 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.
- Developmentally Tailored Telehealth-Delivered Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Adolescents with Body Dysmorphic Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Design.Research on child and adolescent psychopathology · 2026Trial
- Staff Training to Improve the Preschool Educational Environment for Children with Special Needs.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- The Compound Multiple-Baseline Design.Perspectives on behavior science · 2025Article
- Navigating grey areas in HIV and mental health implementation science.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article we respond to the recent recommendation of Slocum et al. (2022), who provided conceptual and methodological recommendations for reconsidering the credibility and validity of the nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. We build on these recommendations and offer replication and randomization upgrades that should further improve the status of the nonconcurrent version of the design in standards and single-case design research. Although we suggest that the nonconcurrent version should be an acceptable methodological option for single-case design researchers, the traditional concurrent multiple-baseline design should generally be the design of choice.
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.