Cargando…
Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept
Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from single-case designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern. Although structured aids to visual analysis such as the dual-criteria (DC) method may increase interrater agreement, the accuracy of the analyses may...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7198678/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32440643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00244-0 |
_version_ | 1783529034101030912 |
---|---|
author | Lanovaz, Marc J. Giannakakos, Antonia R. Destras, Océane |
author_facet | Lanovaz, Marc J. Giannakakos, Antonia R. Destras, Océane |
author_sort | Lanovaz, Marc J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from single-case designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern. Although structured aids to visual analysis such as the dual-criteria (DC) method may increase interrater agreement, the accuracy of the analyses may still benefit from improvements. Thus, the purpose of our study was to (a) examine correspondence between visual analysis and models derived from different machine learning algorithms, and (b) compare the accuracy, Type I error rate and power of each of our models with those produced by the DC method. We trained our models on a previously published dataset and then conducted analyses on both nonsimulated and simulated graphs. All our models derived from machine learning algorithms matched the interpretation of the visual analysts more frequently than the DC method. Furthermore, the machine learning algorithms outperformed the DC method on accuracy, Type I error rate, and power. Our results support the somewhat unorthodox proposition that behavior analysts may use machine learning algorithms to supplement their visual analysis of single-case data, but more research is needed to examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7198678 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71986782020-05-21 Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept Lanovaz, Marc J. Giannakakos, Antonia R. Destras, Océane Perspect Behav Sci Original Research Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from single-case designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern. Although structured aids to visual analysis such as the dual-criteria (DC) method may increase interrater agreement, the accuracy of the analyses may still benefit from improvements. Thus, the purpose of our study was to (a) examine correspondence between visual analysis and models derived from different machine learning algorithms, and (b) compare the accuracy, Type I error rate and power of each of our models with those produced by the DC method. We trained our models on a previously published dataset and then conducted analyses on both nonsimulated and simulated graphs. All our models derived from machine learning algorithms matched the interpretation of the visual analysts more frequently than the DC method. Furthermore, the machine learning algorithms outperformed the DC method on accuracy, Type I error rate, and power. Our results support the somewhat unorthodox proposition that behavior analysts may use machine learning algorithms to supplement their visual analysis of single-case data, but more research is needed to examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach. Springer International Publishing 2020-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7198678/ /pubmed/32440643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00244-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Lanovaz, Marc J. Giannakakos, Antonia R. Destras, Océane Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title | Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title_full | Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title_fullStr | Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title_full_unstemmed | Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title_short | Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept |
title_sort | machine learning to analyze single-case data: a proof of concept |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7198678/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32440643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00244-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lanovazmarcj machinelearningtoanalyzesinglecasedataaproofofconcept AT giannakakosantoniar machinelearningtoanalyzesinglecasedataaproofofconcept AT destrasoceane machinelearningtoanalyzesinglecasedataaproofofconcept |