Investigation of Single-Case Multiple-Baseline Randomization Tests of Trend and Variability

Levin, Joel R.; Ferron, John M.; Gafurov, Boris

doi:10.1007/s10648-020-09549-7

Cited by 24 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In situations where a larger sample size is not possible, it might be worth considering alternative means of evaluating and presenting data, such as a single-case multiple-baseline AB design. With this design, the outcome variable is measured on a few “cases” (e.g., subjects) in a baseline phase (the A phase) and in an experimental phase (the B phase) (Bulté and Onghena, 2009 ; Bouwmeester and Jongerling, 2020 ; Levin et al, 2020 ). Then, the effect of the experimental phase is analysed using visual inspection of the pattern of observations in each phase and randomisation tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Indirect and Direct Reputation Formation in Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reputation is a key component in social interactions of group-living animals and appears to play a role in the establishment of cooperation. Animals can form a reputation of an individual by directly interacting with them or by observing them interact with a third party, i.e., eavesdropping. Elephants are an interesting taxon in which to investigate eavesdropping as they are highly cooperative, large-brained, long-lived terrestrial mammals with a complex social organisation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) could form reputations of humans through indirect and/or direct experience in two different paradigms: (1) a cooperative string-pulling task and (2) a scenario requiring begging. Fourteen captive Asian elephants in Thailand participated in an experimental procedure that consisted of three parts: baseline, observation, and testing. In the observation phase, the subject saw a conspecific interact with two people—one cooperative/generous and one non-cooperative/selfish. The observer could then choose which person to approach in the test phase. The elephants were tested in a second session 2–5 days later. We found no support for the hypothesis that elephants can form reputations of humans through indirect or direct experience, but these results may be due to challenges with experimental design rather than a lack of capacity. We discuss how the results may be due to a potential lack of ecological validity in this study and the difficulty of assessing motivation and attentiveness in elephants. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of designing future experiments that account for the elephants' use of multimodal sensory information in their decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Indirect and Direct Reputation Formation in Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the assessment of between-phase variability changes, Kromrey and Foster-Johnson (1996) recommend using variance ratios. More recently, Levin et al (2020) recommended the median absolute deviation for the assessment of variability changes. The WWC guidelines recommend subtracting the mean of the last three baseline data points from the first three intervention data points to assess immediacy.…”

Section: Effect Size Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of applied single-case research published between 2016 and 2018: Study designs, randomization, data aspects, and data analysis

Tanious

Onghena

2020

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have become a popular research methodology in educational science, psychology, and beyond. The growing popularity has been accompanied by the development of specific guidelines for the conduct and analysis of SCEDs. In this paper, we examine recent practices in the conduct and analysis of SCEDs by systematically reviewing applied SCEDs published over a period of three years (2016)(2017)(2018). Specifically, we were interested in which designs are most frequently used and how common randomization in the study design is, which data aspects applied single-case researchers analyze, and which analytical methods are used. The systematic review of 423 studies suggests that the multiple baseline design continues to be the most widely used design and that the difference in central tendency level is by far most popular in SCED effect evaluation. Visual analysis paired with descriptive statistics is the most frequently used method of data analysis. However, inferential statistical methods and the inclusion of randomization in the study design are not uncommon. We discuss these results in light of the findings of earlier systematic reviews and suggest future directions for the development of SCED methodology.

show abstract

“…Although presently beyond the scope of this article, there is also a need to examine the utility of statistical analyses for supplementing visual analyses within RAD studies. The extent to which statistical analyses like randomization tests (Hua et al, 2020;Levin et al, 2020;Onghena & Edgington, 1994) and nonparametric effect-size estimates (e.g., NAP) contribute to the precision and strength of evidence is unknown and prime for further study. In the spirit of creativity and innovation, we look forward to a RAD future.…”

Section: Call To Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Be RAD: Repeated Acquisition Design Features that Enhance Internal and External Validity

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Repeated Acquisition Design (RAD) is a type of single-case research design (SCRD) that involves repeated and rapid measurement of irreversible discrete skills or behaviors through pre-and postintervention probes across different sets of stimuli. Researchers interested in the study of learning in animals and humans have used the RAD because of its sensitivity to detect immediate changes in rate or accuracy. Despite its strengths, critics of the RAD have cautioned against its use due to reasonable threats to internal validity like pretest effects, history, and maturation. Furthermore, many methodologists and researchers have neglected the RAD in their SCRD standards (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2020;Horner et al., 2005). Unless given guidance to address threats to internal validity, researchers may avoid the design altogether or continue to use a weak version of the RAD. Therefore, we propose a set of 15 quality RAD indicators, comprising foundational elements that should be present in all RAD studies and additional features that enhance causal inference and external validity. We review contemporary RAD use and describe how the additional features strengthen the rigor of RAD studies. We end the article with suggested guidelines for interpreting effects and the strength of the evidence generated by RAD studies. We invite researchers to use these initial guidelines as a jumping off point for a more RAD future.Keywords single-case research design . repeated acquisition design . education . behavior analysis . measurement

show abstract

Investigation of Single-Case Multiple-Baseline Randomization Tests of Trend and Variability

Cited by 24 publications

References 54 publications

Investigating Indirect and Direct Reputation Formation in Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

Investigating Indirect and Direct Reputation Formation in Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus)

A systematic review of applied single-case research published between 2016 and 2018: Study designs, randomization, data aspects, and data analysis

How to Be RAD: Repeated Acquisition Design Features that Enhance Internal and External Validity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About