The author provides commentary on the scientific enterprise of single-case meta-analysis, including experiences with and use of the percentage of nonoverlapping data statistic. The author provides a brief review and commentary on the benefits and liabilities of the PND statistic as well as other effect size metrics. The article includes general commentary about the perception and position of single-subject meta-analysis and its use to inform health insurance decision making in the field of autism. The commentary ends with predictions and recommendations for single-case meta-analysis in the next 25 years.
CampbellJ. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral intervention for reducing problematic behaviors in persons with autism: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 120–138.
2.
CampbellJ. M. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28, 234–246.
3.
CampbellJ. M.HerzingerC. V. (2010). Statistics and single subject research methodology. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 417–453). New York, NY: Routledge.
CooperH. (2009). Hypotheses and problems in research synthesis. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 19–35). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
6.
CooperH.HedgesL. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
7.
DiddenR.DukerP. C.KorziliusH. (1997). Meta-analytic study on treatment effectiveness for problem behaviors with individuals who have mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 387–399.
8.
FaithM. S.AllisonD. B.GormanB. S. (1996). Meta-analysis of single-case research. In FranklinR. D.AllisonD. B.GormanB. S. (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 245–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
GastD. L.SpriggsA. D. (2010). Visual analysis of graphic data. In GastD. L. (Ed.), Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 199–233). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
KratochwillT.R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
11.
MaH. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single subject researches: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30, 598–617.
12.
MagginD. M.O’KeeffeB. V.JohnsonA. H. (2011). A quantitative synthesis of methodology in the meta-analysis of single-subject research for students with disabilities: 1986-2009. Exceptionality, 19, 109–135.
13.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6, e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
14.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
15.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.BrownL. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single case research. Exceptional Children, 75, 135–150.
16.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322.
17.
RindskopfD. M.HornerR. H.SpauldingS. (2008, April). Single-case design. Presented at the IES Research Training Institute on single-case design, Washington, DC.
18.
SalzbergC. L.StrainP. S.BaerD. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure?Remedial and Special Education, 8, 43–48.
19.
SchlosserR. W.LeeD. L.WendtO. (2008). Application of the percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A systematic review of reporting characteristics. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 163–187.
20.
ScottiJ. R.EvansI. M.MeyerL. H.WalkerP. (1991). A meta-analysis of intervention research with problem behavior: Treatment validity and standards of practice. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 233–256.
21.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 9–19.
22.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
23.
ShadishW. R.RindskopfD. M. (2007). Methods of evidence-based practice: Quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 95–109.
24.
ShadishW. R.RindskopfD. M.HedgesL. V. (2008). The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 3, 188–196.
van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2003). Combining single-case experimental data using hierarchical linear models. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 325–346.
27.
VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.GonenO. (2011). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0) [Web-based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available from www.singlecaseresearch.org
28.
WoleryM.BusickM.ReichowB.BartonE. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. Journal of Special Education, 44, 18–28.
