There are currently a multitude of quantification techniques that have been developed for use with single-case designs. As a result, choosing an appropriate quantification technique can be overwhelming and it can be difficult for researchers to properly describe and justify their use of quantification techniques. However, providing clear descriptions and justifications is important for enhancing the credibility of single-case research, and allowing others to evaluate the appropriateness of the quantification technique used. The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an overview of the quantification techniques that are used to analyze single-case designs, with a focus on the descriptions and justifications that are provided. A total of 290 quantifications occurred across 218 articles, and the descriptions and justifications that were provided for the quantification techniques that were used are systematically examined. Results show that certain quantification techniques, such as the non-overlap indices, are more commonly used. Descriptions and justifications provided for using the quantification techniques are sometimes vague or subjective. Single-case researchers are encouraged to complement visual analysis with the use of quantification techniques for which they can provide objective and appropriate descriptions and justifications, and are encouraged to use tools to guide their choice of quantification techniques.
AlnahdiG. H. (2015). Single-subject designs in special education: Advantages and limitations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12039
2.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2020: The official guide to APA style (7th ed.).
3.
BrossartD. F.LairdV. C.ArmstrongT. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1518687. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687
4.
BusseR. T.McGillR. J.KennedyK. S. (2015). Methods for assessing single-case school-based intervention outcomes. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0025-7
5.
CarlinM. T.CostelloM. S. (2018). Development of a distance-based effect size metric for single-case research: Ratio of distances. Behavior Therapy, 49(6), 981–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2018.02.005
6.
CarterM. (2013). Reconsidering overlap-based measures for quantitative synthesis of single-subject data: What they tell us and what they don’t. Behavior Modification, 37(3), 378–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513476609
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
8.
Council for Exceptional Children Working Group. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. http://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389
9.
DartE. H.RadleyK. C. (2017). The impact of ordinate scaling on the visual analysis of single-case data. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.008
10.
DartE. H.Van NormanE. R.KlingbeilD. A.RadleyK. C. (2023). Graph construction and visual analysis: A comparison of curriculum-based measurement vendors. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32, 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09440-7
11.
De GrootM.DrangsholtM.Martin-SanchezF. J.WolfG. (2017). Single subject (N-of-1) research design, data processing, and personal science. Methods of Information in Medicine, 56(06), 416–418. https://doi.org/10.3414/ME17-03-0001
12.
DillerJ. W.BarryR. J.GelinoB. W. (2016). Visual analysis of data in a multielement design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 980–985. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.325
13.
DowdyA.PeltierC.TincaniM.SchneiderW. J.HantulaD. A.TraversJ. C. (2021). Meta-analyses and effect sizes in applied behavior analysis: A review and discussion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1317–1340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.862
FerronJ. M.GoldsteinH.OlszewskiA.RohrerL. (2020). Indexing effects in single-case experimental designs by estimating the percent of goal obtained. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 14(1–2), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2020.1732024
16.
FerronJ. M.MoeyaertM.Van den NoortgateW.BeretvasN. S. (2014). Estimating causal effects from multiple-baseline studies: Implications for design and analysis. Psychological Methods, 19(4), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037038
17.
FingerhutJ.MoeyaertM. (2022). Selecting and justifying quantitative analysis techniques in single-case research through a user-friendly open-source tool. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1064807
18.
FingerhutJ.XuX.MoeyaertM. (2021a). Impact of within-case variability on Tau-U and regression-based effect size measures for single-case experimental data. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 15(3), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.1933727
19.
FingerhutJ.XuX.MoeyaertM. (2021b). Selecting the proper Tau-U measure for single-case experimental designs: Development and application of a decision flowchart. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 15(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.1937851
20.
FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.LomasJ. E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-387
HalesA. H.WesselmannE. D.HilgardJ. (2019). Improving psychological science through transparency and openness: An overview. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00186-8
24.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
25.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224−239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
26.
HedgesL. V.PustejovskyJ. E.ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4(4), 324−341. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1086
27.
HornerR. H.SwaminathanH.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0011
28.
HuitemaB. E.McKeanJ. W. (2000). Design specification issues in time-series intervention models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970358
29.
ImamA. A. (2021). Historically recontextualizing Sidman’s Tactics: How behavior analysis avoided psychology’s methodological Ouroboros. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.661
30.
JacobsonN. S.TruaxP. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12
31.
KleinL. A.HoulihanD.VincentJ. L.PanahonC. J. (2017). Best practices in utilizing the changing criterion design. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-014-0036-x
32.
KratochwillT. R.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.MachalicekW.FerronJ.JohnsonA. (2021). Single-case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades. Journal of School Psychology, 89, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.006
33.
KubinaR. M.Jr.KostewiczD. E.KingS. A.BrennanK. M.WertalikJ.RizzoK.MarkelzA. (2021). Standards of graph construction in special education research: A review of their use and relevance. Education & Treatment of Children, 44(4), 275–290.
34.
JamshidiL.HeyvaertM.DeclercqL.Fernandez-CastillaB.FerronJ.MoeyaertM.BeretvasS. N.OnghenaP.Van den NoortgateW. (2022). A systematic review of single-case experimental design meta-analysis: Characteristics of study designs, data, and analyses. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2022.2089334
35.
LaneJ. D.LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2017). Single-case experimental design: Current standards and applications in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.022210
36.
LarawayS.SnycerskiS.PradhanS.HuitemaB. E. (2019). An overview of scientific reproducibility: Consideration of relevant issues for behavior science/analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00193-3
37.
LundervoldD. A.BelwoodM. F. (2000). The best kept secret in counseling: Single-case (N=1) experimental designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02565.x
38.
MaH. H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 598–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445504272974.
39.
MagginD. M.BartonE.ReichowB.LaneK.ShogrenK. A. (2021). Commentary on the What Works Clearinghouse Standards and Procedures Handbook (v. 4.1) for the review of single-case research. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211051317
40.
MagginD. M.CookB. G.CookL. (2019). Making sense of single-case design effect sizes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(3), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12204
41.
ManolovR.MoeyaertM. (2017). Recommendations for choosing single-case data analytical techniques. Behavior Therapy, 48, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.04.008
42.
ManolovR.MoeyaertM.FingerhutJ. (2022). A priori justification for effect measures in single-case experimental designs. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(1), 156–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00282-2
43.
McDonaldS.QuinnF.VieiraR.O’BrienN.WhiteM.JohnstonD. W.SniehottaF. F. (2017). The state of the art and future opportunities for using longitudinal n-of-1 methods in health behaviour research: A systematic literature overview. Health Psychology Review, 11(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1316672
44.
McInerneyM.ImmsC.CardingP. N.ReddihoughD. S. (2021). Evaluation of an intensive voice treatment to reduce anterior drooling in children with cerebral palsy: Protocol for a concurrent multiple-baseline, single case experimental design study. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 24, 100872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100872
45.
MitchellB. S.LewisT. J.StormontM. (2021). A daily check-in/check-out intervention for students with internalizing concerns. Journal of Behavioral Education, 30(2), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09365-7
46.
MoeyaertM.FerronJ. M.BeretvasS. N.Van den NoortgateW. (2014). From a single-level analysis to a multilevel analysis of single-case experimental designs. Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.003
47.
MoeyaertM.YangP.XuX. (2021). The power to explain variability in intervention effectiveness in single-case research using hierarchical linear modeling. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00304-z
48.
MooreT. C.GordonJ. R.WilliamsA.EshbaughJ. F. (2022). A positive version of the Good Behavior Game in a self-Contained classroom for EBD: Effects on individual student behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 47(2), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429211061125
49.
OliveM. L.FrancoJ. H. (2008). (Effect) size matters: And so does the calculation. The Behavior Analyst Today, 9(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100642
50.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestK. (2007). Percentage of All Non-Overlapping Data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040101
51.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: NonOverlap of All pairs (NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
52.
ParkerR. I.VannestK.BrownL. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500201
53.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
54.
PeltierC.MuharibR.HaasA.DowdyA. (2022). A decade review of two potential analysis altering variables in graph construction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52(2), 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04959-0
55.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
56.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2019). Procedural sensitivities of effect sizes for single-case designs with directly observed behavioral outcome measures. Psychological Methods, 24(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000179
57.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL. V.ShadishW. R. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(5), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577
58.
RadleyK. C.DartE. H.WrightS. J. (2018). The effect of data points per x- to y-axis ratio on visual analysts evaluation of single-case graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000243
59.
RoaneH.FisherW.KelleyM.MeversJ.BouxseinK. (2013). Using modified visual-inspection criteria to interpret funcitonal analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 130–146.
60.
SalleseM. R.VannestK. J. (2022). Effects of a manualized teacher-led coaching intervention on paraprofessional use of behavior-specific praise. Remedial and Special Education, 43(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211017298
61.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206
62.
ShadishW. R. (2014). Statistical analyses of single-case designs: The shape of things to come. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414524773
63.
ShafferJ. A.KronishI. M.FalzonL.CheungY. K.DavidsonK. W. (2018). N-of-1 randomized intervention trials in health psychology: A systematic review and methodology critique. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 52(9), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax026
64.
SolomonB. G. (2014). Violations of assumptions in school-based single-case data: Implications for the selection and interpretation of effect sizes. Behavior Modification, 38(4), 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445513510931
SwaminathanH.RogersH. J.HornerR. H.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK. (2014). Regression models for the analysis of single case designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.887586
67.
TaniousR.DeT. K.MichielsB.Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2019). Consistency in single-case ABAB phase designs: A systematic review. Behavior Modification. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519853793
68.
TankersleyM.McGoeyK. E.DaltonD.RumrillP. D.Jr.BalanC. M. (2006). Single subject research methods in rehabilitation. Work, 26(1), 85–92.
69.
TarlowK. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline corrected Tau. Behavior Modification, 41(4), 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516676750
70.
TateR. L.PerdicesM.RosenkoetterU.ShadishW.VohraS.BarlowD. H.HornerR.KazdinA.KratochwillT.McDonaldS.SampsonM.ShamseerL.TogherL.AlbinR.BackmanC.DouglasJ.EvansJ. J.GastD.ManolovR.MitchellG.WilsonB. (2016). The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement. Physical Therapy, 96(7), e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.2016.96.7.e1
71.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C. (2021). Questionable research practices in single-case experimental designs: Examples and possible solutions. In O’DonohueW.MasudaA.LilienfeldS. O. (Eds.), Questionable research practices: Designing, conducting, and reporting sound research in clinical psychology. Springer Publications. https://psyarxiv.com/7ea56/
72.
Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2003). Combining single-case experimental data using hierarchical linear models. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.3.325.22577
73.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What works clearinghouse standards handbook [Version 4.1]. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
74.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What works clearinghouse standards handbook [Version 5.0]. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
75.
WoleryM.BusickM.ReichowB.BartonE. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. The Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908328009
76.
WolfeK.SeamanM. A.DrasgowE. (2016). Interrater agreement on the visual analysis of individual tiers and functional relations in multiple baseline designs. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 852–873. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145445516644699
77.
ZuidersmaM.RieseH.SnippeE.BooijS. H.WichersM.BosE. H. (2020). Single-subject research in psychiatry: Facts and fictions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 1174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.539777
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
