It has been said that, “There are three degrees of falsehoods: Lies,damn lies,and statistics”

Applied behavior analysis (ABA) researchers have historically eschewed population-based, inferential statistics, preferring to conduct and analyze repeated observations of each participant's responding under carefully controlled and manipulated experimental conditions using single-case designs (SCDs). In addition, early attempts to adapt traditional statistical procedures for use with SCDs often involved trade-offs between experimental and statistical control that most ABA researchers have found undesirable. The statistical methods recommended for use with SCDs in the current special issue represent a welcome departure from such prior suggestions in that the current authors are proposing that SCD researchers add statistical methods to their current practices in ways that do not alter traditional SCD practices. Further refinement and use of such methods would (a) facilitate the inclusion of research using SCDs in meta-analyses and (b) aid in the development and planning of grant-funded research using SCD methods. Collaboration between SCD researchers and statisticians, particularly on research that demonstrates the benefit of these methods, may help promote their acceptance and use in ABA.     

Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs with a standardized mean difference statistic: A primer and applications

This article presents a d-statistic for single-case designs that is in the same metric as the d-statistic used in between-subjects designs such as randomized experiments and offers some reasons why such a statistic would be useful in SCD research. The d has a formal statistical development, is accompanied by appropriate power analyses, and can be estimated using user-friendly SPSS macros. We discuss both advantages and disadvantages of d compared to other approaches such as previous d-statistics, overlap statistics, and multilevel modeling. It requires at least three cases for computation and assumes normally distributed outcomes and stationarity, assumptions that are discussed in some detail. We also show how to test these assumptions. The core of the article then demonstrates in depth how to compute d for one study, including estimation of the autocorrelation and the ratio of between case variance to total variance (between case plus within case variance), how to compute power using a macro, and how to use the d to conduct a meta-analysis of studies using single-case designs in the free program R, including syntax in an appendix. This syntax includes how to read data, compute fixed and random effect average effect sizes, prepare a forest plot and a cumulative meta-analysis, estimate various influence statistics to identify studies contributing to heterogeneity and effect size, and do various kinds of publication bias analyses. This d may prove useful for both the analysis and meta-analysis of data from SCDs.     

An effect size measure and Bayesian analysis of single-case designs

This article describes a linear modeling approach for the analysis of single-case designs (SCDs). Effect size measures in SCDs have been defined and studied for the situation where there is a level change without a time trend. However, when there are level and trend changes, effect size measures are either defined in terms of changes in R² or defined separately for changes in slopes and intercept coefficients. We propose an alternate effect size measure that takes into account changes in slopes and intercepts in the presence of serial dependence and provides an integrated procedure for the analysis of SCDs through estimation and inference based directly on the effect size measure. A Bayesian procedure is described to analyze the data and draw inferences in SCDs. A multilevel model that is appropriate when several subjects are available is integrated into the Bayesian procedure to provide a standardized effect size measure comparable to effect size measures in a between-subjects design. The applicability of the Bayesian approach for the analysis of SCDs is demonstrated through an example.     

Using generalized additive (mixed) models to analyze single case designs

This article shows how to apply generalized additive models and generalized additive mixed models to single-case design data. These models excel at detecting the functional form between two variables (often called trend), that is, whether trend exists, and if it does, what its shape is (e.g., linear and nonlinear). In many respects, however, these models are also an ideal vehicle for analyzing single-case designs because they can consider level, trend, variability, overlap, immediacy of effect, and phase consistency that single-case design researchers examine when interpreting a functional relation. We show how these models can be implemented in a wide variety of ways to test whether treatment is effective, whether cases differ from each other, whether treatment effects vary over cases, and whether trend varies over cases. We illustrate diagnostic statistics and graphs, and we discuss overdispersion of data in detail, with examples of quasibinomial models for overdispersed data, including how to compute dispersion and quasi-AIC fit indices in generalized additive models. We show how generalized additive mixed models can be used to estimate autoregressive models and random effects and discuss the limitations of the mixed models compared to generalized additive models. We provide extensive annotated syntax for doing all these analyses in the free computer program R.     

Single-case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades

In this paper, we provide a critique focused on the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards for Single-Case Research Design (Standards 4.1). Specifically, we (a) recommend the use of visual-analysis to verify a single-case intervention study's design standards and to examine the study's operational issues, (b) identify limitations of the design-comparable effect-size measure and discuss related statistical matters, (c) review the applicability and practicality of Standards 4.1 to single-case designs (SCDs), and (d) recommend inclusion of content pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion in future standards. Within the historical context of the WWC Pilot Standards for Single-Case Design (1.0), we suggest that Standards 4.1 may best serve as standards for meta-analyses of SCDs but will need to make clear distinctions among the various types of SCD studies that are included in any research synthesis. In this regard, we argue for transparency in SCD studies that meet design standards and those that do not meet design standards in any meta-analysis emanating from the WWC. The intent of these recommendations is to advance the science of SCD research both in research synthesis and in promoting evidence-based practices.     

How to become a Bayesian in eight easy steps: An annotated reading list

In this guide, we present a reading list to serve as a concise introduction to Bayesian data analysis. The introduction is geared toward reviewers, editors, and interested researchers who are new to Bayesian statistics. We provide commentary for eight recommended sources, which together cover the theoretical and practical cornerstones of Bayesian statistics in psychology and related sciences. The resources are presented in an incremental order, starting with theoretical foundations and moving on to applied issues. In addition, we outline an additional 32 articles and books that can be consulted to gain background knowledge about various theoretical specifics and Bayesian approaches to frequently used models. Our goal is to offer researchers a starting point for understanding the core tenets of Bayesian analysis, while requiring a low level of time commitment. After consulting our guide, the reader should understand how and why Bayesian methods work, and feel able to evaluate their use in the behavioral and social sciences.     

Evaluating single-case research data for systematic review: A commentary for the special issue

The purpose of this commentary is to provide observation on the statistical procedures described throughout this special section from the perspective of researchers with experience in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of single-case research to address issues of evidence-based practice. It is our position that both visual and statistical analyses are complimentary methods for evaluating single-case research data for these purposes. Given the recent developments regarding the use of single-case research to inform evidence-based practice and policy, the developments described in the present issue will be contextualized within the need for a widely accepted process for data evaluation to assist with extending the impact of single-case research. The commentary will, therefore, begin with providing an overview of the conceptual underpinnings of a systematic review of single-case research and will be followed by a discussion of several features that are essential to the development of a conceptually sound and widely used statistical procedure for single-case research. The commentary will conclude with recommendations and guidelines for the use of both visual and statistical analyses within primary research reports and recommendations for future research.     

贝叶斯统计方法的应用与现状

贝叶斯统计方法是心理学数据分析的热门方法。研究全面论述贝叶斯方法在心理学领域的应用与方向。现阶段贝叶斯方法以模拟研究为主,应用方向为心理学研究常用的项目反应理论、认知诊断、计算机自适应、结构方程模型。同时,评述发现贝叶斯方法正逐步被国内心理学研究者所接受。最后,文章讨论了当下贝叶斯统计在心理学研究中应用的局限性及可能的原因,建议统计学者开发界面友好的贝叶斯软件,并在心理学课程中加入贝叶斯知识。     

Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Design Research: Introduction to the Special Issue

Single-case design (SCD) research focuses on finding powerful effects, but the influence of this methodology on the evidence-based practice (EBP) movement is questionable. Meta-analytic procedures may help facilitate the role of SCD research in the EBP movement, but meta-analyses of SCDs are controversial. The current article provides an introduction to the special issue on meta-analyses of SCD research by discussing concerns regarding the internal and external validity of these designs. Specific considerations for increasing the validity of SCD meta-analyses are provided, as are brief overviews of the articles included in the special issue.     

我国近十年来心理学研究中HLM方法的应用述评

以2002-2011年中国期刊网收录的50例应用多层线性模型(HLM)的心理学期刊论文为研究对象,从样本描述、模型发展与规范、数据准备、估计方法与假设检验4个角度进行文献计量和内容分析,对我国心理学研究中HLM方法的使用现状进行评估。结果表明,HLM方法主要用于管理、发展和教育心理学,绝大多数应用都是两层模型且层2样本量较大。HLM方法在广泛应用的同时仍存在忽略前提假设检验、分析过程中的重要信息和结果报告不完整等问题,随后提供了4条建议。     

From a single-level analysis to a multilevel analysis of single-case experimental designs

Multilevel modeling provides one approach to synthesizing single-case experimental design data. In this study, we present the multilevel model (the two-level and the three-level models) for summarizing single-case results over cases, over studies, or both. In addition to the basic multilevel models, we elaborate on several plausible alternative models. We apply the proposed models to real datasets and investigate to what extent the estimated treatment effect is dependent on the modeling specifications and the underlying assumptions. By considering a range of plausible models and assumptions, researchers can determine the degree to which the effect estimates and conclusions are sensitive to the specific assumptions made. If the same conclusions are reached across a range of plausible assumptions, confidence in the conclusions can be enhanced. We advise researchers not to focus on one model but conduct multiple plausible multilevel analyses and investigate whether the results depend on the modeling options.     

Abstract: A Meta-Analysis of the Autocorrelation in Single Case Designs

Single case design (SCD) experiments in the behavioral sciences utilize just one participant from whom data is collected over time. This design permits causal inferences to be made regarding various intervention effects, often in clinical or educational settings, and is especially valuable when between-participant designs are not feasible or when interest lies in the effects of an individualized treatment. Regression techniques are the most common quantitative practice for analyzing time series data and provide parameter estimates for both treatment and trend effects. However, the presence of serially correlated residuals, known as autocorrelation, can severely bias inferences made regarding these parameter estimates. Despite the severity of the issue, few researchers test or correct for the autocorrelation in their analyses.

Shadish and Sullivan (in press) recently conducted a meta-analysis of over 100 studies in order to assess the prevalence of the autocorrelation in the SCD literature. Although they found that the meta-analytic weighted average of the autocorrelation was close to zero, the distribution of autocorrelations was found to be highly heterogeneous. Using the same set of SCDs, the current study investigates various factors that may be related to the variation in autocorrelation estimates (e.g., study and outcome characteristics). Multiple moderator variables were coded for each study and then used in a metaregression in order to estimate the impact these predictor variables have on the autocorrelation.

This current study investigates the autocorrelation using a multilevel meta-analytic framework. Although meta-analyses involve nested data structures (e.g., effect sizes nested within studies nested within journals), there are few instances of meta-analysts utilizing multilevel frameworks with more than two levels. This is likely attributable to the fact that very few software packages allow for meta-analyses to be conducted with more than two levels and those that do allow this provide sparse documentation on how to implement these models. The proposed presentation discusses methods for carrying out a multilevel meta-analysis. The presentation also discusses the findings from the metaregression on the autocorrelation and the implications these findings have on SCDs.     

Introduction to the Special Section on Applied Longitudinal Methods in Aging Research

This article introduces articles that appear in the special section on applied longitudinal methods in aging research. These articles apply quantitative statistical techniques such as multilevel modeling and structural equation models to the analysis of longitudinal data. They exemplify how applications of these techniques can advance scientific research on the effects of aging on psychological constructs. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethics and rural healthcare: what really happens? What might help?

Relatively few articles discuss the ethical issues that accompany healthcare in rural areas. This article presents and discusses the key findings obtained from multi-method research studies conducted over a 9-year period of time in a multi-state rural area. It challenges the efficacy of current models for bioethics, shows what kinds of ethical issues develop in rural communities, and offers a framework for envisioning resources and approaches that may be more appropriate.     

Solutions to the problems of incremental validity testing in relationship science

Incremental validity testing (i.e., testing whether a focal predictor is associated with an outcome above and beyond a covariate) is common (e.g., 57% of Personal Relationships articles in 2017), yet it is fraught with conceptual and statistical problems. First, researchers often use it to overemphasize the novelty or counterintuitiveness of findings, which hinders cumulative understanding. Second, incremental validity testing requires that the focal predictor and the covariate represent separate constructs; researchers risk committing the “jangle fallacy” without such evidence. Third, the most common approach to incremental validity testing (i.e., standard multiple regression, 88% of articles) inflates Type I error and can produce invalid conclusions. This article also discusses the relevance of these issues to dyadic/longitudinal designs and offers concrete solutions.     

Estimating confidence intervals for eigenvalues in exploratory factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) has become a common procedure in educational and psychological research. In the course of performing an EFA, researchers often base the decision of how many factors to retain on the eigenvalues for the factors. However, many researchers do not realize that eigenvalues, like all sample statistics, are subject to sampling error, which means that confidence intervals (CIs) can be estimated for each eigenvalue. In the present article, we demonstrate two methods of estimating CIs for eigenvalues: one based on the mathematical properties of the central limit theorem, and the other based on bootstrapping. References to appropriate SAS and SPSS syntax are included. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.     

An introduction to Bayesian model selection for evaluating informative hypotheses

Most researchers have specific expectations concerning their research questions. These may be derived from theory, empirical evidence, or both. Yet despite these expectations, most investigators still use null hypothesis testing to evaluate their data, that is, when analysing their data they ignore the expectations they have. In the present article, Bayesian model selection is presented as a means to evaluate the expectations researchers have, that is, to evaluate so called informative hypotheses. Although the methodology to do this has been described in previous articles, these are rather technical and havemainly been published in statistical journals. The main objective of thepresent article is to provide a basic introduction to the evaluation of informative hypotheses using Bayesian model selection. Moreover, what is new in comparison to previous publications on this topic is that we provide guidelines on how to interpret the results. Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses is illustrated using an example concerning psychosocial functioning and the interplay between personality and support from family.     

Recommendations for Describing Statistical Studies and Results in General Readership Science and Engineering Journals

This paper recommends how authors of statistical studies can communicate to general audiences fully, clearly, and comfortably. The studies may use statistical methods to explore issues in science, engineering, and society or they may address issues in statistics specifically. In either case, readers without explicit statistical training should have no problem understanding the issues, the methods, or the results at a non-technical level. The arguments for those results should be clear, logical, and persuasive. This paper also provides advice for editors of general journals on selecting high quality statistical articles without the need for exceptional work or expense. Finally, readers are also advised to watch out for some common errors or misuses of statistics that can be detected without a technical statistical background.     

Modeling competence development in the presence of selection bias

A major challenge for representative longitudinal studies is panel attrition, because some respondents refuse to continue participating across all measurement waves. Depending on the nature of this selection process, statistical inferences based on the observed sample can be biased. Therefore, statistical analyses need to consider a missing-data mechanism. Because each missing-data model hinges on frequently untestable assumptions, sensitivity analyses are indispensable to gauging the robustness of statistical inferences. This article highlights contemporary approaches for applied researchers to acknowledge missing data in longitudinal, multilevel modeling and shows how sensitivity analyses can guide their interpretation. Using a representative sample of N = 13,417 German students, the development of mathematical competence across three years was examined by contrasting seven missing-data models, including listwise deletion, full-information maximum likelihood estimation, inverse probability weighting, multiple imputation, selection models, and pattern mixture models. These analyses identified strong selection effects related to various individual and context factors. Comparative analyses revealed that inverse probability weighting performed rather poorly in growth curve modeling. Moreover, school-specific effects should be acknowledged in missing-data models for educational data. Finally, we demonstrated how sensitivity analyses can be used to gauge the robustness of the identified effects.