A multilevel meta-analysis of single-subject experimental design studies

By W. Van den Noortgate, Patrick Onghena. 2008

200 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9bd7cbcf63d5fc2652b581115ecf52e6cd87e63f

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

A Quantitative Synthesis of Methodology in the Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject Research for Students with Disabilities: 1985–2009 (2011, background): “…variables (e.g., interval versus frequency; length of data collection sessions), (b) the inflexibility of traditional regression to handle complex error structures such as those related to serial dependencies, and (c) incompatibility with group-based measures (Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2008).”
Randomization tests for single-case experiments: State of the art, state of the science, and state of the application (2014, background): “…are generally based on the comparison between two independent groups with scores within each condition coming from different participants, while effects for SCEs are based on scores from the same participant over time (Beretvas & Chung, 2008; Busk & Serlin, 1992; Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2008).”
Effect Size in Single-Case Research: A Review of Nine Nonoverlap Techniques (2011, methodology): “The net impact is the rapid development of several types of analyses for SCR, including multilevel models (van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2003, 2008), advanced regression models (Allison & Gorman, 1993; Huitema & McKean, 2000), and simpler, distribution-free nonparametric models, notably data…”
The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs (2008, background): “Both Beretvas and Chung (2008b) and van den Noortgate and Onghena (2008) discuss ways to do this using various forms of standardization.”
A Systematic Evidence Review of the Check-In/Check-Out Program for Reducing Student Challenging Behaviors (2015, methodology): “…data with values greater than 2.0 considered clinically significant; and (d) the raw data multilevel analysis (RDMA) procedures described by Van den Noortgate and Onghena (2008), which also provides a standardized estimate of the difference between baseline and intervention phases and is assessed…”