Effect size calculations and single subject designs

By Melissa L. Olive, Benjamin W. Smith. 2005

242 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/700b0e6d86f0f43e61c6c29bb5d96fe37dbdf0ba

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

Citations in the corpus

Application of the percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A systematic review of reporting characteristics (2008, methodology): “Second, that the manuscript was a systematic review or meta-analysis of treatments using SSED studies; individual SSED studies using the PND to determine treatment effectiveness within their studies were excluded (eg, Bonner & Barrett, 2004 ; Lovelace & Stewart, 2007 ; Olive & Smith, 2005 ).”
Evaluating Sensitivity to Behavioral Change Using Direct Behavior Rating Single-Item Scales (2012, methodology): “Consistent with previous work (e.g., Olive & Smith, 2005), we hypothesized that the various metrics (a) could demonstrate utility in evaluating sensitivity but that limitations to each would be revealed, and (b) would correspond with teacher perception of intervention acceptability.”
The Impact of Social Scripts and Visual Cues on Verbal Communication in Three Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders (2008, background): “Marquis et al. (2000) criticized the use of PND as too easily influenced by outliers in the baseline or by differing phase lengths; however, Campbell (2004) and Olive and Smith (2005) conclude that PND is valid for documenting the effects of interventions in singlesubject research.”
Single-Case Experimental Designs: A Systematic Review of Published Research and Current Standards (2012, unknown): “…and interpretation is discussed in significant detail elsewhere (e.g., Campbell, 2004; Cohen, 1994; Ferron & Sentovich, 2002; Ferron & Ware, 1995; Kirk, 1996; Manolov & Solanas, 2008; Olive & Smith, 2005; Parker & Brossart, 2003; Robey et al., 1999; Smith et al., in press; Velicer & Fava, 2003).”
Review of Video Modeling with Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (2009, background): “While several other methods for synthesizing single subject data exist (e.g., Standard Mean Difference, Percentage Reduction Measure), a recent review and empirical comparison of these methods found consistent results across methods (Olive & Smith, 2005).”
Contrasting the Effectiveness of Fluency Interventions for Students with or at Risk for Learning Disabilities: A Multilevel Random Coefficient Modeling Meta–Analysis (2006, background): “What is notable, however, is the intense controversy over the most appropriate effect size metric to employ (e.g., Campbell, 2004; Olive & Smith, 2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998).”
Increasing Secondary Teachers’ Behavior-Specific Praise Using a Video Self-Modeling and Visual Performance Feedback Intervention (2011, methodology): “Although criticized as being susceptible to variances in data (Marquis et al., 2000), PND has emerged as a useful metric for evaluating the effects of interventions in single-subject research (Olive & Smith, 2005).”
A Meta-Analysis on Teaching Mathematics to Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (2008, methodology): “Comparisons of these alternate methods to analyze single-subject data found consistent interpretations across the different methods (Campbell, 2004; Olive & Smith, 2005).”
Class-Wide Function-Related Intervention Teams: Effects of Group Contingency Programs in Urban Classrooms (2011, methodology): “The effect size (ES) was computed using the formula ES = (intervention mean – baseline mean)/(baseline SD) including all conditions, described by Dunst, Hamby, and Trivette (2004) and Olive and Smith (2005) and was determined to be large, 2.03.”
How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. (2009, background): “The options are discussed by Busk and Serlin (1992) and Olive and Smith (2005).”