程序特征对学业成果个案内效应大小的影响

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Ethan R. Van Norman , David A. Klingbeil , Adelle K. Sturgell
{"title":"程序特征对学业成果个案内效应大小的影响","authors":"Ethan R. Van Norman ,&nbsp;David A. Klingbeil ,&nbsp;Adelle K. Sturgell","doi":"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have been used with increasing frequency to identify evidence-based interventions in education. The purpose of this study was to explore how several procedural characteristics, including within-phase variability (i.e., measurement error), number of baseline observations, and number of intervention observations influenced the magnitude of four SCED effect sizes, including (a) non-overlap of all pairs (NAP), (b) baseline corrected tau (BC-Tau), (c) mean-phase difference (MPD), and (d) generalized least squares (GLS) when applied to hypothetical academic intervention SCED data. Higher levels of measurement error decreased the average magnitude of effect sizes, particularly NAP and BC-Tau. However, the number of intervention observations had minimal impact on the average magnitude of NAP and BC-Tau. Increasing the number of intervention observations dramatically increased the magnitude of GLS and MPD. Increasing the number of baseline observations also tended to increase the average magnitude of MPD. The ratio of baseline to intervention observations had a statistically but not practically significant influence on the average magnitude of NAP, BC-Tau, and GLS. Careful consideration is required when determining the length of time academic SCEDs are conducted and what effect sizes are used to summarize treatment outcomes. This article also highlights the value of using meaningful simulation conditions to understand the performance of SCED effect sizes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The influence of procedural characteristics on within-case effect sizes for academic outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Ethan R. Van Norman ,&nbsp;David A. Klingbeil ,&nbsp;Adelle K. Sturgell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have been used with increasing frequency to identify evidence-based interventions in education. The purpose of this study was to explore how several procedural characteristics, including within-phase variability (i.e., measurement error), number of baseline observations, and number of intervention observations influenced the magnitude of four SCED effect sizes, including (a) non-overlap of all pairs (NAP), (b) baseline corrected tau (BC-Tau), (c) mean-phase difference (MPD), and (d) generalized least squares (GLS) when applied to hypothetical academic intervention SCED data. Higher levels of measurement error decreased the average magnitude of effect sizes, particularly NAP and BC-Tau. However, the number of intervention observations had minimal impact on the average magnitude of NAP and BC-Tau. Increasing the number of intervention observations dramatically increased the magnitude of GLS and MPD. Increasing the number of baseline observations also tended to increase the average magnitude of MPD. The ratio of baseline to intervention observations had a statistically but not practically significant influence on the average magnitude of NAP, BC-Tau, and GLS. Careful consideration is required when determining the length of time academic SCEDs are conducted and what effect sizes are used to summarize treatment outcomes. This article also highlights the value of using meaningful simulation conditions to understand the performance of SCED effect sizes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524000670\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440524000670","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

单例实验设计(SCED)越来越多地被用于确定循证教育干预措施。本研究的目的是探讨在应用于假定的学术干预 SCED 数据时,包括阶段内变异性(即测量误差)、基线观察数和干预观察数在内的几个程序特征如何影响四种 SCED 效果大小,包括(a)所有对的非重叠(NAP)、(b)基线校正 tau(BC-Tau)、(c)平均阶段差(MPD)和(d)广义最小二乘法(GLS)。测量误差越大,效应大小的平均值越小,尤其是 NAP 和 BC-Tau。然而,干预观察的次数对 NAP 和 BC-Tau 的平均值影响甚微。增加干预观察的次数会显著增加 GLS 和 MPD 的幅度。增加基线观测值的数量也会增加 MPD 的平均值。基线观测值与干预观测值的比例对 NAP、BC-Tau 和 GLS 的平均值有统计学上的影响,但实际上并不显著。在确定进行学术 SCED 的时间长度以及使用何种效应大小来总结治疗结果时,需要慎重考虑。本文还强调了使用有意义的模拟条件来了解 SCED 效果大小表现的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The influence of procedural characteristics on within-case effect sizes for academic outcomes

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have been used with increasing frequency to identify evidence-based interventions in education. The purpose of this study was to explore how several procedural characteristics, including within-phase variability (i.e., measurement error), number of baseline observations, and number of intervention observations influenced the magnitude of four SCED effect sizes, including (a) non-overlap of all pairs (NAP), (b) baseline corrected tau (BC-Tau), (c) mean-phase difference (MPD), and (d) generalized least squares (GLS) when applied to hypothetical academic intervention SCED data. Higher levels of measurement error decreased the average magnitude of effect sizes, particularly NAP and BC-Tau. However, the number of intervention observations had minimal impact on the average magnitude of NAP and BC-Tau. Increasing the number of intervention observations dramatically increased the magnitude of GLS and MPD. Increasing the number of baseline observations also tended to increase the average magnitude of MPD. The ratio of baseline to intervention observations had a statistically but not practically significant influence on the average magnitude of NAP, BC-Tau, and GLS. Careful consideration is required when determining the length of time academic SCEDs are conducted and what effect sizes are used to summarize treatment outcomes. This article also highlights the value of using meaningful simulation conditions to understand the performance of SCED effect sizes.

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
Journal of School Psychology
Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The Journal of School Psychology publishes original empirical articles and critical reviews of the literature on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings. JSP presents research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation. Submissions from a variety of disciplines are encouraged. All manuscripts are read by the Editor and one or more editorial consultants with the intent of providing appropriate and constructive written reviews.
×
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