The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs

By W. Shadish, D. Rindskopf, L. Hedges. 2008

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/597e90a3ab14d5ec710b1d7e9ac2c1ffd88d7e9a

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

1. Daniel M. Maggin
2. J. Smith
3. W. Shadish
4. Sandra M. Chafouleas
5. R. Horner
6. Breda V. O’Keeffe
7. Austin H. Johnson
8. S. Odom

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. J. Smith
2. Daniel M. Maggin
3. R. Horner
4. Thomas Kratochwill
5. D. Rindskopf
6. W. Shadish
7. Rommel L. Bunuan

Citations in the corpus

• Single-Case Experimental Designs: A Systematic Review of Published Research and Current Standards (2012, methodology): “SCEDs have been given short shrift in the majority of meta-analytic literature (Littell, Corcoran, & Pillai, 2008; Shadish et al., 2008), with only a few exceptions (Carr et al., 1999; Horner & Spaulding, 2010).”
• A Quantitative Synthesis of Methodology in the Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject Research for Students with Disabilities: 1985–2009 (2011, background): “In recent years, several effect size indices have been developed that attempt to utilize the strengths of these indices while improving on their limitations ( Beretvas & Chung, 2008 ; Shadish, Rindskopf, & Hedges, 2008 ).”
• Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards (2013, background): “First, as noted above, there is no consensus on the “correct” form of an ES estimate for SCD (Shadish et al., 2008).”
• An Application of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Evaluating Single-Subject Research (2013, background): “Although the observed improvement for the present review might be staggering when considered within the context of traditional conventions drawn from group-based research (Cohen, 1988), these estimates have both statistical and conceptual justifications (Shadish et al., 2008).”
• A Systematic Evidence Review of the Check-In/Check-Out Program for Reducing Student Challenging Behaviors (2015, methodology): “The visual analyses were supported with supplemental quantitative metrics; however, the absence of a reliable measure is a limitation (Shadish et al., 2008).”
• Effects of the Good Behavior Game on Challenging Behaviors in School Settings (2014, background): “Shadish, Rindskopf, and Hedges (2008) suggested that these effect size differences (i.e., between Cohen’s d and PND/PAND) are somewhat common and unsurprising because SSEDs contain within-subject variability as the primary source of variation.”