Single–case research methods provide a basis for demonstrating that an intervention produces a reliable change in a targeted outcome for individual cases. To supplement visual analysis of data in single–case studies, researchers frequently report statistics—often referred to as effect sizes—to summarize study findings. The recent proliferation of effect sizes used in single–case research can be confusing. In this article, after reviewing single–case research, we provide an overview of common types of effect sizes used in single–case research, including overlap metrics and within– and between–participant effect sizes, and conclude with examples of these effect sizes in the single–case literature. Our take–home message is that effect sizes are useful complements to visual analysis when interpreting results of single–case design research studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonE. E., PustejovskyJ. E., MagginD. M., & ReichowB. (2017). Technology–aided instruction and intervention for students with ASD: A meta–analysis using novel methods of estimating effect sizes for single–case research. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517729508
2.
BuskP., & SerlinR. (1992). Meta–analysis for single–participant research. In KratochwillT. R. & LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single–case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
CookB. G., CookL., & TherrienW. J. (2018). Group–difference effect sizes: Gauging the practical importance of findings from group–experimental research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12167
4.
GageN. A., Grasley–BoyN. M., & MacSuga–GageA. S. (2018). Professional development to increase teacher behavior–specific praise: A single–case design replication. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717693568
5.
HedgesL. V., PustejovskyJ. E., & ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
6.
JensonW. R., ClarkE., KircherJ. C., & KristjanssonS. D. (2007). Statistical reform: Evidence–based practice, meta–analyses, and single subject designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20240
7.
KazdinA. E. (2011). Single–case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
KilgusS. P., Riley–TillmanT. C., & KratochwillT. R. (2016). Establishing interventions via a theory–driven single case design research cycle. School Psychology Review, 45, 477–498. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-4.477-498
9.
LosinskiM., EnnisR. P., SandersS., & WisemanN. (2019). An investigation of SRSD to teach fractions to students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918813980
10.
MagginD. M., CookB. G., & CookL. (2018). Using single–case research designs to examine the effects of interventions in special education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12184
11.
MagginD. M., LaneK. L., & PustejovskyJ. E. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on single–case systematic reviews and meta–analyses. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517717043
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: 1985–2009. Exceptionality, 19, 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2011.565725
13.
RodriguezB. J., & AndersonC. M. (2014). Integrating a social behavior intervention during small group academic instruction using a total group criterion intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713492858
14.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512440730
15.
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
16.
ShadishW. R., HedgesL. V., HornerR. H., & OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between–case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single–case research (NCER 2015–002). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562991.pdf
17.
VannestK. J., & NinciJ. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single–case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411.
18.
ZimmermanK. N., PustejovskyJ. E., LedfordJ. R., BartonE. E., SeveriniK. E., & LloydB. P. (2018). Single–case synthesis tools II: Comparing quantitative outcome measures. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 65–76.
