Systematic Review of Descriptions and Justifications Provided for Single-Case Quantification Techniques.

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Behavior Modification Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1177/01454455231178469
Joelle Fingerhut, Mariola Moeyaert, Rumen Manolov, Xinyun Xu, Kyung Hyun Park
{"title":"Systematic Review of Descriptions and Justifications Provided for Single-Case Quantification Techniques.","authors":"Joelle Fingerhut, Mariola Moeyaert, Rumen Manolov, Xinyun Xu, Kyung Hyun Park","doi":"10.1177/01454455231178469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are currently a multitude of quantification techniques that have been developed for use with single-case designs. As a result, choosing an appropriate quantification technique can be overwhelming and it can be difficult for researchers to properly describe and justify their use of quantification techniques. However, providing clear descriptions and justifications is important for enhancing the credibility of single-case research, and allowing others to evaluate the appropriateness of the quantification technique used. The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an overview of the quantification techniques that are used to analyze single-case designs, with a focus on the descriptions and justifications that are provided. A total of 290 quantifications occurred across 218 articles, and the descriptions and justifications that were provided for the quantification techniques that were used are systematically examined. Results show that certain quantification techniques, such as the non-overlap indices, are more commonly used. Descriptions and justifications provided for using the quantification techniques are sometimes vague or subjective. Single-case researchers are encouraged to complement visual analysis with the use of quantification techniques for which they can provide objective and appropriate descriptions and justifications, and are encouraged to use tools to guide their choice of quantification techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455231178469","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are currently a multitude of quantification techniques that have been developed for use with single-case designs. As a result, choosing an appropriate quantification technique can be overwhelming and it can be difficult for researchers to properly describe and justify their use of quantification techniques. However, providing clear descriptions and justifications is important for enhancing the credibility of single-case research, and allowing others to evaluate the appropriateness of the quantification technique used. The aim of this systematic literature review is to provide an overview of the quantification techniques that are used to analyze single-case designs, with a focus on the descriptions and justifications that are provided. A total of 290 quantifications occurred across 218 articles, and the descriptions and justifications that were provided for the quantification techniques that were used are systematically examined. Results show that certain quantification techniques, such as the non-overlap indices, are more commonly used. Descriptions and justifications provided for using the quantification techniques are sometimes vague or subjective. Single-case researchers are encouraged to complement visual analysis with the use of quantification techniques for which they can provide objective and appropriate descriptions and justifications, and are encouraged to use tools to guide their choice of quantification techniques.

对单例量化技术的说明和理由进行系统性审查。
目前,针对单例设计开发了多种量化技术。因此,选择一种合适的量化技术可能会让人不知所措,而且研究人员也很难正确描述量化技术的使用方法并证明其合理性。然而,提供清晰的描述和理由对于提高单案例研究的可信度以及让其他人评估所使用的量化技术是否合适非常重要。本系统性文献综述旨在概述用于分析单案例设计的量化技术,重点关注所提供的说明和理由。共有 218 篇文章采用了 290 种量化技术,本文系统地研究了所采用的量化技术的说明和理由。结果表明,某些量化技术(如非重叠指数)更常用。使用量化技术的说明和理由有时比较模糊或主观。我们鼓励单例研究人员使用量化技术对直观分析进行补充,并提供客观、适当的说明和理 由,同时鼓励他们使用工具来指导量化技术的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavior Modification
Behavior Modification PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: For two decades, researchers and practitioners have turned to Behavior Modification for current scholarship on applied behavior modification. Starting in 1995, in addition to keeping you informed on assessment and modification techniques relevant to psychiatric, clinical, education, and rehabilitation settings, Behavior Modification revised and expanded its focus to include treatment manuals and program descriptions. With these features you can follow the process of clinical research and see how it can be applied to your own work. And, with Behavior Modification, successful clinical and administrative experts have an outlet for sharing their solutions in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信