In response to the importance of individual-level effects, the purpose of this paper is to describe the new randomization permutation (RP) test for a mediation mechanism for a single subject. We extend seminal work on permutation tests for individual-level data by proposing a test for mediation for one person. The method requires random assignment to the levels of the treatment variable at each measurement occasion, and repeated measures of the mediator and outcome from one subject. If several assumptions are met, the process by which a treatment changes an outcome can be statistically evaluated for a single subject, using the permutation mediation test method and the permutation confidence interval method for residuals. A simulation study evaluated the statistical properties of the new method suggesting that at least eight repeated measures are needed to control Type I error rates and larger sample sizes are needed for power approaching .8 even for large effects. The RP mediation test is a promising method for elucidating intraindividual processes of change that may inform personalized medicine and tailoring of process-based treatments for one subject.
BarlowD. H.NockM. K.HersenM. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Pearson.
3.
Barnard‐BrakL.WatkinsL.RichmanD. M. (2021). Autocorrelation and estimates of treatment effect size for single‐case experimental design data. Behavioral Interventions, 36(3), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1783
BuskP. L.MarascuiloL. A. (1988). Autocorrelation in single-subject research: A counterargument to the myth of no autocorrelation. Behavioral Assessment, 10(3), 229–242.
6.
CattellR. B. (1952). The three basic factor-analytic research designs—their interrelations and derivatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49(5), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054245
7.
ChurchillG. A.DoergeR. W. (2008). Naive application of permutation testing leads to inflated type I error rates. Genetics, 178(1), 609–610. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.074609
8.
CollinsL. M.GrahamJ. W.FlahertyB. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295–312.
GastD. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. Routledge.
13.
GaynorS. T.HarrisA. (2008). Single-participant assessment of treatment mediators: Strategy description and examples from a behavioral activation intervention for depressed adolescents. Behavior Modification, 32(3), 372–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445507309028
14.
GeukeG. G. M.MaricM.MiočevićM.WoltersL. H.HaanE. (2019). Testing mediators of youth intervention outcomes using single-case experimental designsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) in clinical and community settings: Challenges, Alternatives and supplementary designs. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(167), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20310
15.
GossenA.HahnA.WestphalL.PrinzS.SchultzR.T.GründerG.SpreckelmeyerK. N. (2012). Oxytocin plasma concentrations after single intranasal oxytocin administration – A study in healthy men. Neuropeptides, 46(5), 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npep.2012.07.001
16.
HollandP. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 18, 449-484. https://doi.org/10.2307/271055.
17.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761
18.
JosephyH.VansteelandtS.VanderhasseltM.LoeysT. (2015). Within-subject mediation analysis in AB/BA crossover designs. International Journal of Biostatistics, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijb-2014-0057
19.
KazdinA. (2011). Single-case research designs: Method for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
20.
KroehlM. ELutzS.WagnerB. D. (2020). Permutation-based methods for mediation analysis in studies with small sample sizes. PeerJ, 8, e8246. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8246
21.
LeeuwM.HoubenR. M.SevereijnsR.PicavetH. S. J.SchoutenE. G.VlaeyenJ. W. (2007). Pain-related fear in low back pain: A prospective study in the general population. European Journal of Pain, 11(3), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-006-9085-0
22.
LeiH.Nahum-ShaniI.LynchK.OslinD.MurphyS. A. (2012). A “SMART” design for building individualized treatment sequences. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143152
MacKinnonD. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
MacKinnonD. P. (2019). Causal mediation analysis and applications to single case studies. Workshop presentation. Lorentz Center Workshop.
26.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsV. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediated and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83.
27.
MacKinnonD. P.PirlottA. (2015). Statistical approaches to enhancing the causal interpretation of the M to Y relation in mediation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314542878
28.
ManlyB. F. (1997). Randomization, bootstrap and Monte Carlo methods in biology. CRC Press.
29.
MaricM.de haanE.HogendoornS.M.WoltersL.H.HuizengaH.M. (2015). Evaluating statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in single-case experimental designs: An SPSS method to analyze univariate data. Behavior Therapy, 46(2), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.005
30.
MaricM.PrinsP. J. M.OllendickT. H. (2015). Moderators and mediators of youth treatment outcomes. Oxford University Press.
31.
MaricM.WiersR.W.PrinsP.J.M. (2012). Ten ways to improve the use of statistical mediation analysis in the practice of child and adolescent treatment research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-012-0114-y
32.
MayhughR. E.RejeskiW. J.PetrieM. R.LaurientiP. J.GauvinL. (2018). Differing patterns of stress and craving across the day in moderate-heavy alcohol consumers during their typical drinking routine and an imposed period of alcohol abstinence. Plos One, 13(4), e0195063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195063
33.
McVayM. A.BennettG. G.SteinbergD.VoilsC. I. (2019). Does-response research in digital health interventions: Concepts, considerations, and challenges. Health Psychology, 38(12), 1168–1174. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000805
34.
MiočevićM.KlaassenF.GeukeG.MoeyaertM.MaricM. (2020). Using bayesian methods to test mediators of intervention outcomes in single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 14(1–2), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2020.1732029
35.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back Into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
36.
MolenaarP. C. M.CampbellC. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.x
37.
OnghenaP. (2018). Randomization tests or permutation tests? A historical and terminological clarification. In BergerV. (Ed.) Randomization, masking, and allocation concealment, (pp. 209–227). Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
38.
OnghenaP.TaniousR.DeT. K.MichielsB. (2019). Randomization tests for changing criterion designs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 117, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.01.005
39.
O’RourkeH. P.MacKinnonD. P. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2018.79.171.
40.
PearlJ. (2001). Direct and indirect effects. In BreeseJ.KollerD. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, August 2–5, 2001, (pp. 411-420). Morgan Kaufmann.
41.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
42.
RillingJ.K.DeMarcoA.C.HackettP.D.ThompsonR.DitzenB.PatelR.PagnoniG. (2012). Effects of intranasal oxytocin and vasopressin on cooperative behavior and associated brain activity in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(4), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.07.013
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, 2(3), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802581603
46.
ShadishW.SullivanK. (2011). Characteristics of single-case designs used to assess intervention effects in 2008. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0111-y
47.
ShinN.Y.ParkH.Y.JungW.H.KwonJ.S. (2018). Effects of intranasal oxytocin on emotion recognition in Korean male: A dose-response study. Psychiatry Investigation, 15(7), 710–716. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2018.02.19
48.
ShinN. Y.ParkH. Y.JungW. H.ParkJ. W.YunJ. Y.JangJ. H.KimS. N.HanH. J.KimS. Y.KangD. H.KwonJ. S. (2015). Effects of oxytocin on neural response to facial expressions in Patients with schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 40(8), 1919–1927. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.41
49.
StevensL.J.KuczekT.BurgessJ.R.StochelskiM.A.ArnoldL.E.GallandL. (2013). Mechanisms of behavioral, atopic, and other reactions to artificial food colors in children. Nutrition Reviews, 71(5), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12023
50.
TaylorA. B.MacKinnonD. P. (2012). Four applications of permutation methods to testing a single-mediator model. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 806–844. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0181-x
51.
ter BraakC. J. F. (1992). Permutation versus bootstrap significance tests in multiple regression and ANOVA. In JockelK.-H.RotheG.SendlerW. (Eds) Bootstrapping and related techniques, (pp. 79–85). Springer.
52.
ValeriL.VanderWeeleT. J. (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for exposure–mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychological Methods, 18(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031034.
53.
VanderWeeleT. (2015). Explanation in causal inference: Methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press.
54.
VanderWeeleT. J.VansteelandtS. (2009). Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and its Interface (Special Issue on Mental Health and Social Behavioral Science), 2, 457–468.
VuorreM.BolgerN. (2018). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 2125–2143. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0980-9
WurptsI.MiočevićM.MacKinnonD. P. (2021). Sequential bayesian data synthesis for mediation and regression analysis. Prevention Science.
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.
