An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs.

By Richard I. Parker, Kimberly J. Vannest. The Behavior Therapist, 2009

1,183 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Food Science, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2bf640607a231d4871a82a8d647f4ffea31cc248

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Food Science

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Using Virtual Manipulative Instruction to Teach the Concepts of Area and Perimeter to Secondary Students With Learning Disabilities (2015, background): “Tau-U scores are reported between 0 and 1, with 0.93 to 1 considered a large effect, 0.66 to 0.92 a medium effect, and 0 to 0.65 a small effect (Parker & Vannest, 2009).”
Single-Case Experimental Designs: A Systematic Review of Published Research and Current Standards (2012, methodology): “Visual analysis, following systematic procedures such as those provided by Franklin, Gorman, Beasley, and Allison (1997) and Parsonson and Baer (1978), remains the standard by which SCED data are most commonly analyzed (Parker, Cryer, & Byrns, 2006). Visual analysis can arguably be applied to all SC”
Effect Size in Single-Case Research: A Review of Nine Nonoverlap Techniques (2011, methodology): “Although well-documented limitations exist and call for its abandonment (Kratochwill et al., 2010; Parker & Vannest, 2009), PND (Scruggs et al., 1987) is still widely used and thus included here for comparison.”
A Review of Summarizing and Main Idea Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 3 Through 12: 1978–2016 (2019, methodology): “NAP differs from PND, in that it evaluates all possible data overlap between the two phases (Parker & Vannest, 2009).”
A Systematic Evidence Review of the Check-In/Check-Out Program for Reducing Student Challenging Behaviors (2015, background): “…of 65% or below associated with a weak effect, between 66% and 92% associated with a moderate effect, and 93% and above considered a strong effect (Parker & Vannest, 2009); (b) the improvement rate difference (IRD), which also provides a summary of data overlap between phases with values of 70%…”
Calculating Effect Size in Single-Case Research (2013, result): “Several studies (Parker et al., 2011; Parker & Vannest, 2009; Wolery, Busick, Reichow, & Barton, 2010) demonstrated that some methods of calculating effect size for SCRDs are more conservative when compared with others.”
Mindfulness Training for Teachers Changes the Behavior of Their Preschool Students (2013, methodology): “Phi offers a numerical expression of the extent to which data during the baseline and practice (postintervention) phases overlap and was calculated based on procedures described by Parker and colleagues (e.g., Parker et al., 2007; Parker & Vannest, 2009).”
A Follow-Up Meta-analysis for Word-Problem-Solving Interventions for Students with Mathematics Difficulties (2012, background): “As such, the PND measure may not be sufficiently sensitive to evaluate the magnitude of treatment effectiveness (Parker & Vannest, 2009 ).”
Bottom-Up Analysis of Single-Case Research Designs (2012, positive): “Bottom-up analysis possesses benefits that fit well with SCR, including applicability to designs with few data points and few phases, customization of analyses based on design and data idiosyncrasies, conformation with visual analysis, and directly meaningful effect sizes (Faith et al. 1996; Parker ”
Effective Intervention for Behavior With a Daily Behavior Report Card: A Meta-Analysis (2010, background): “Currently, more options are available to address this deficit (Parker, Hagan-Burke, & Vannest, 2007; Parker & Vannest, 2009).”
Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs (2018, methodology): “While our literature search was not as comprehensive as the one conducted by Smith (2012), we were able to collect a wide range of studies not included in Smith’s review as well as earlier studies (e.g., Parker & Hagan-Burke, 2007a; Parker, Hagan-Burke, & Vannest, 2007; Parker & Vannest, 2009).”