A review of meta-analyses of single-subject experimental designs: Methodological issues and practice

By S. N. Beretvas, Hyewon Chung. 2008

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff725b0395c2708700a56647672e7262fd57a2fb

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Design-Comparable Effect Sizes in Multiple Baseline Designs (2014, background): “Many different effect size metrics have been proposed for SCDs, though nearly all are subject to serious criticisms (Beretvas & Chung, 2008; Wolery, Busick, Reichow, & Barton, 2010).”
Application of the percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A systematic review of reporting characteristics (2008, background): “Among the many proposed and discussed metrics (e.g. Beretvas & Chung, 2008a, 2008b; Wendt, 2008) is the percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987).”
The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs (2008, methodology): “Beretvas and Chung (2008a) reviewed many of the possibilities; and Schlosser, Lee and Wendt (2008) and Schneider, Goldstein and Parker (2008) showed how to perform a metaanalysis using percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) and percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND), respectively.”
A Quantitative Synthesis of Methodology in the Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject Research for Students with Disabilities: 1985–2009 (2011, methodology): “In the absence of a systematic approach to synthesizing results from single-subject literature, researchers have utilized a variety of techniques and methods to evaluate the strength of evidence across studies using these methods ( Beretvas & Chung, 2008 ).”
An Application of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Evaluating Single-Subject Research (2013, background): “The dearth of guidelines for synthesizing single-subject research has not discouraged investigators from pursuing systematic reviews of interventions examined with singlesubject methods (Beretvas & Chung, 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).”