单例实验设计中缺失数据的特征:对已发表数据的调查。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Behavior Modification Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-17 DOI:10.1177/01454455231212265
Orhan Aydin
{"title":"单例实验设计中缺失数据的特征:对已发表数据的调查。","authors":"Orhan Aydin","doi":"10.1177/01454455231212265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have grown in popularity in the fields such as education, psychology, medicine, and rehabilitation. Although SCEDs are valid experimental designs for determining evidence-based practices, they encounter some challenges in analyses of data. One of these challenges, missing data, is likely to be occurred frequently in SCEDs research due to repeated measurements over time. Since missing data is a critical factor that can weaken the validity and generalizability of a study, it is important to determine the characteristics of missing data in SCEDs, which are especially conducted with a small number of participants. In this regard, this study aimed to describe missing data features in SCEDs studies in detail. To accomplish this goal, 465 published SCEDs studies within the recent 5 years in six journals were included in the investigation. The overall results showed that the prevalence of missing data among SCEDs articles in at least one phase, as at least one data point, was approximately 30%. In addition, the results indicated that the missing data rates were above 10% within most studies where missing data occurred. Although missing data is so common in SCEDs research, only a handful of studies (5%) have handled missing data; however, their methods are traditional. In analyzing SCEDs data, several methods are proposed considering missing data ratios in the literature. Therefore, missing data rates determined in this study results can shed light on the analyses of SCEDs data with proper methods by improving the validity and generalizability of study results.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of Missing Data in Single-Case Experimental Designs: An Investigation of Published Data.\",\"authors\":\"Orhan Aydin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01454455231212265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have grown in popularity in the fields such as education, psychology, medicine, and rehabilitation. Although SCEDs are valid experimental designs for determining evidence-based practices, they encounter some challenges in analyses of data. One of these challenges, missing data, is likely to be occurred frequently in SCEDs research due to repeated measurements over time. Since missing data is a critical factor that can weaken the validity and generalizability of a study, it is important to determine the characteristics of missing data in SCEDs, which are especially conducted with a small number of participants. In this regard, this study aimed to describe missing data features in SCEDs studies in detail. To accomplish this goal, 465 published SCEDs studies within the recent 5 years in six journals were included in the investigation. The overall results showed that the prevalence of missing data among SCEDs articles in at least one phase, as at least one data point, was approximately 30%. In addition, the results indicated that the missing data rates were above 10% within most studies where missing data occurred. Although missing data is so common in SCEDs research, only a handful of studies (5%) have handled missing data; however, their methods are traditional. In analyzing SCEDs data, several methods are proposed considering missing data ratios in the literature. Therefore, missing data rates determined in this study results can shed light on the analyses of SCEDs data with proper methods by improving the validity and generalizability of study results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"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/10.1177/01454455231212265\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455231212265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

单例实验设计(SCEDs)在教育、心理学、医学和康复等领域越来越受欢迎。尽管SCEDs是确定循证实践的有效实验设计,但它们在数据分析中遇到了一些挑战。其中一个挑战,数据丢失,可能经常发生在SCEDs研究中,因为随着时间的推移重复测量。由于缺失数据是削弱研究有效性和普遍性的关键因素,因此确定sced中缺失数据的特征非常重要,特别是在参与者较少的情况下进行的sced。在这方面,本研究旨在详细描述SCEDs研究中缺失的数据特征。为了实现这一目标,调查纳入了近5年来在6种期刊上发表的465篇SCEDs研究。总体结果显示,SCEDs文章中至少一个阶段(至少一个数据点)缺失数据的发生率约为30%。此外,结果表明,在大多数发生数据缺失的研究中,数据缺失率都在10%以上。虽然数据缺失在SCEDs研究中很常见,但只有少数研究(5%)处理了数据缺失;然而,他们的方法是传统的。在分析SCEDs数据时,提出了几种考虑文献中缺失数据比率的方法。因此,本研究结果确定的缺失数据率可以通过提高研究结果的有效性和可推广性,为采用合适的方法分析SCEDs数据提供启发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Characteristics of Missing Data in Single-Case Experimental Designs: An Investigation of Published Data.

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have grown in popularity in the fields such as education, psychology, medicine, and rehabilitation. Although SCEDs are valid experimental designs for determining evidence-based practices, they encounter some challenges in analyses of data. One of these challenges, missing data, is likely to be occurred frequently in SCEDs research due to repeated measurements over time. Since missing data is a critical factor that can weaken the validity and generalizability of a study, it is important to determine the characteristics of missing data in SCEDs, which are especially conducted with a small number of participants. In this regard, this study aimed to describe missing data features in SCEDs studies in detail. To accomplish this goal, 465 published SCEDs studies within the recent 5 years in six journals were included in the investigation. The overall results showed that the prevalence of missing data among SCEDs articles in at least one phase, as at least one data point, was approximately 30%. In addition, the results indicated that the missing data rates were above 10% within most studies where missing data occurred. Although missing data is so common in SCEDs research, only a handful of studies (5%) have handled missing data; however, their methods are traditional. In analyzing SCEDs data, several methods are proposed considering missing data ratios in the literature. Therefore, missing data rates determined in this study results can shed light on the analyses of SCEDs data with proper methods by improving the validity and generalizability of study results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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