Abstract
Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Casto (this issue) advocate the use of the percentage of nonoverlapping data points (PND) to summarize and synthesize single-subject research. We take issue with the PND method, which reduces functional analyses to a one-number summary, for the following reasons: (a) the most relevant and credible evidence from single-subject designs lies in the patterns of change across time; (b) summaries based on PND may miss vital idiosyncracies in behavior within and across studies; (c) as practiced previously, syntheses of literature based on PND may misrepresent procedural facts and outcomes; and (d) as practiced previously, syntheses based on PND attempt, inappropriately, to draw conclusions about the relative merits of broad categories of intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
