↓ Skip to main content

Analyzing Two-Phase Single-Case Data with Non-overlap and Mean Difference Indices: Illustration, Software Tools, and Alternatives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Analyzing Two-Phase Single-Case Data with Non-overlap and Mean Difference Indices: Illustration, Software Tools, and Alternatives
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rumen Manolov, José L. Losada, Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Susana Sanduvete-Chaves

Abstract

Two-phase single-case designs, including baseline evaluation followed by an intervention, represent the most clinically straightforward option for combining professional practice and research. However, unless they are part of a multiple-baseline schedule, such designs do not allow demonstrating a causal relation between the intervention and the behavior. Although the statistical options reviewed here cannot help overcoming this methodological limitation, we aim to make practitioners and applied researchers aware of the available appropriate options for extracting maximum information from the data. In the current paper, we suggest that the evaluation of behavioral change should include visual and quantitative analyses, complementing the substantive criteria regarding the practical importance of the behavioral change. Specifically, we emphasize the need to use structured criteria for visual analysis, such as the ones summarized in the What Works Clearinghouse Standards, especially if such criteria are complemented by visual aids, as illustrated here. For quantitative analysis, we focus on the non-overlap of all pairs and the slope and level change procedure, as they offer straightforward information and have shown reasonable performance. An illustration is provided of the use of these three pieces of information: visual, quantitative, and substantive. To make the use of visual and quantitative analysis feasible, open source software is referred to and demonstrated. In order to provide practitioners and applied researchers with a more complete guide, several analytical alternatives are commented on pointing out the situations (aims, data patterns) for which these are potentially useful.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,888,406
of 25,600,774 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,047
of 34,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,419
of 404,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#268
of 448 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,600,774 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 404,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 448 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.