Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) have great potential to deal with count and rate data in single-case experimental designs (SCEDs). However, applied researchers face challenges to apply such an advanced approach in their own studies. Hence, our study aimed to provide a tutorial and demonstrate a step-by-step procedure of using GLMMs to handle SCED count and rate outcomes. We utilized an empirical examplewith a purpose to examine the effect of prelinguistic milieu teaching (PMT) on prelinguistic intentional communication for six school-age children with autism. The outcomes were sustained intentional communication (frequency count) and initiated intentional communication (rate). A step-by-step analytical approach with GLMMs was illustrated and associated R and SAS code was provided. The results overall supported the original conclusions of the effectiveness of PMT, whereas additional evidence regarding the precise estimate of the individual treatment effect and between-case variation of the treatment effect were also interpreted. The implications of the similarities and differences between the findings based on GLMMs and from the original study were discussed.
AtkinsD. C.GallopR. J. (2007). Rethinking how family researchers model infrequent outcomes: A tutorial on count regression and zero-inflated models. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.726
2.
BaekE. K.FerronJ. M. (2013). Multilevel models for multiple-baseline data: Modeling across-participant variation in autocorrelation and residual variance. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0231-z
3.
Blasco‐MorenoA.Pérez‐CasanyM.PuigP.MoranteM.CastellsE. (2019). What does a zero mean? Understanding false, random and structural zeros in ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(7), 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13185
4.
BolkerB. M.BrooksM. E.ClarkC. J.GeangeS. W.PoulsenJ. R.StevensM. H. H.WhiteJ.-S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(3), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
5.
BrooksM. E.KristensenK.Van BenthemK. J.MagnussonA.BergC. W.NielsenA.SkaugH. J.MachlerM.BolkerB. M. (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal,9(2), 378−400. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000240890
6.
BrossartD. F.ParkerR. I.OlsonE. A.MahadevanL. (2006). The relationship between visual analysis and five statistical analyses in a simple AB single-case research design. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 531–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503261167
7.
BzochK.LeagueR.BrownV. (2003). Receptive–expressive Emergent Language scale (3rd ed.). Anhinga Press.
8.
CampbellH. (2021). The consequences of checking for zero‐inflation and overdispersion in the analysis of count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12(4), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13559
9.
DeclercqL.JamshidiL.Fernández-CastillaB.BeretvasS. N.MoeyaertM.FerronJ. M.Van den NoortgateW. (2019). Analysis of single-case experimental count data using the linear mixed effects model: A simulation study. Behavior Research Methods, 51(6), 2477–2497. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1091-y
10.
DeProsperoA.CohenS. (1979). Inconsistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-573
11.
FerronJ. M.BellB. A.HessM. R.Rendina-GobioffG.HibbardS. T. (2009). Making treatment effect inferences from multiple-baseline data: The utility of multilevel modeling approaches. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.372
12.
FrancoJ. H.DavisB. L.DavisJ. L. (2013). Increasing social interaction using prelinguistic milieu teaching with nonverbal school-age children with autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(3), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/10-0103
HarringtonM.VelicerW. F. (2015). Comparing visual and statistical analysis in single-case studies using published studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(2), 162–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.973989
15.
HarrisonX. A. (2014). Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution. PeerJ, 2, Article e616. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.616
16.
HartigF. (2022). DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=DHARMa
17.
HilbeJ. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University Press.
18.
HilbeJ. M. (2014). Modeling count data. Cambridge University Press.
19.
HornerR. H.KratochwillT. R. (2012). Synthesizing singlecase research to identify evidence-based practices: Some brief reflections. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(3), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-012-9152-2
20.
HuM.-C.PavlicovaM.NunesE. V. (2011). Zero-inflated and hurdle models of count data with extra zeros: Examples from an HIV-risk reduction intervention trial. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 37(5), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.3109/597280
21.
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
22.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R.HornerR. H.SwobodaC. M. (2014). Visual analysis of single-case intervention research: Conceptual and methodological issues. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances (pp. 53–89). American Psychological Association.
LanovazM. J.RappJ. T. (2016). Using single-case experiments to support evidence-based decisions: How much is enough?Behavior Modification, 40(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515613584
25.
LiH.LuoW.BaekE. (2024). Multilevel modeling in single-case studies with zero-inflated and overdispersed count data. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02359-7
26.
LiH.LuoW.BaekE.ThompsonC. G.LamK. H. (2023). Multilevel modeling in single-case studies with count and proportion data: A demonstration and evaluation. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000607
27.
LiebermanR. G.YoderP. J.ReichowB.WoleryM. (2010). Visual analysis of multiple baseline across participants graphs when change is delayed. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018600
28.
MagginD. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2013). Introduction to the special series: Issues and advances of synthesizing single-case research. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512466269
29.
MaschaE. J.SesslerD. I. (2019). Segmented regression and difference-in-difference methods: Assessing the impact of systemic changes in health care. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 129(2), 618–633. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004153
30.
MoeyaertM.UgilleM.FerronJ. M.BeretvasS. N.den NoortgateW. V. (2014). Three-level analysis of single-case experimental data: Empirical validation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745470
31.
NaglerE.RindskopfD.ShadishW. (2008). Analyzing data from small N designs using multilevel models: A procedural handbook. US Department of Education.
32.
Natesan BatleyP.Shukla MehtaS.HitchcockJ. H. (2021). A Bayesian rate ratio effect size to quantify intervention effects for count data in single case experimental research. Behavioral Disorders, 46(4), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920930704
33.
PustejovskyJ. E.SwanD. M.EnglishK. W. (2019). An examination of measurement procedures and characteristics of baseline outcome data in single-case research. Behavior Modification, 47(6), 1423–1454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519864264
34.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
SAS Institute. (2017). SAS/STAT® 14.3 user’s guide.
37.
SchoplerE.ReichlerR. J.RennerB. R. (2010). The childhood autism rating scale (2nd ed.). Western Psychological Services.
38.
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). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562991.pdf
39.
ShadishW. R.KyseE. N.RindskopfD. M. (2013). Analyzing data from single-case designs using multilevel models: New applications and some agenda items for future research. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032964
40.
ShadishW. R.SullivanK. J. (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
41.
TateR. L.PerdicesM.RosenkoetterU.ShadishW.VohraS.BarlowD. H.HornerR.KazdinA.KratochwillT.McDonaldS.SampsonM.ShamseerL.TogherL.AlbinR.BackmanC.DouglasJ.EvansJ. J.GastD.WilsonB. (2016). The single-case reporting guideline in BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000027
42.
ZuurA. F.IenoE. N.WalkerN. J.SavelievA. A.SmithG. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer.
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.
