2009
DOI: 10.3917/rne.014.0343
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistiques appliquées aux études de cas unique : méthodes usuelles et alternatives

Abstract: Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour John Libbey Eurotext. © John Libbey Eurotext. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One approach is to convert the patient's score to a z score based on the mean and the standard deviation of the control sample. The crucial problem with this is that it treats the control sample as if it was a population and then treats the sample statistics as population parameters (see Atzeni, 2009). When the size of the control sample is large these parameters converge, but when the size of the control sample is small this approach leads to an inflation of Type I error and a risk of overestimating the abnormality of a patient's score.…”
Section: Single-case Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One approach is to convert the patient's score to a z score based on the mean and the standard deviation of the control sample. The crucial problem with this is that it treats the control sample as if it was a population and then treats the sample statistics as population parameters (see Atzeni, 2009). When the size of the control sample is large these parameters converge, but when the size of the control sample is small this approach leads to an inflation of Type I error and a risk of overestimating the abnormality of a patient's score.…”
Section: Single-case Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In agreement with clinical practice, an IQ score under 70 or a z-score under −1.65 was considered significantly impaired. 25 …”
Section: Study Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%