Cargando…
Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs
Recently, there has been an increased interest in developing statistical methodologies for analyzing single case experimental design (SCED) data to supplement visual analysis. Some of these are simulation-driven such as Bayesian methods because Bayesian methods can compensate for small sample sizes,...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33519641 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.617047 |
_version_ | 1783644129575567360 |
---|---|
author | Natesan Batley, Prathiba Nandakumar, Ratna Palka, Jayme M. Shrestha, Pragya |
author_facet | Natesan Batley, Prathiba Nandakumar, Ratna Palka, Jayme M. Shrestha, Pragya |
author_sort | Natesan Batley, Prathiba |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recently, there has been an increased interest in developing statistical methodologies for analyzing single case experimental design (SCED) data to supplement visual analysis. Some of these are simulation-driven such as Bayesian methods because Bayesian methods can compensate for small sample sizes, which is a main challenge of SCEDs. Two simulation-driven approaches: Bayesian unknown change-point model (BUCP) and simulation modeling analysis (SMA) were compared in the present study for three real datasets that exhibit “clear” immediacy, “unclear” immediacy, and delayed effects. Although SMA estimates can be used to answer some aspects of functional relationship between the independent and the outcome variables, they cannot address immediacy or provide an effect size estimate that considers autocorrelation as required by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards. BUCP overcomes these drawbacks of SMA. In final analysis, it is recommended that both visual and statistical analyses be conducted for a thorough analysis of SCEDs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7843386 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78433862021-01-30 Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs Natesan Batley, Prathiba Nandakumar, Ratna Palka, Jayme M. Shrestha, Pragya Front Psychol Psychology Recently, there has been an increased interest in developing statistical methodologies for analyzing single case experimental design (SCED) data to supplement visual analysis. Some of these are simulation-driven such as Bayesian methods because Bayesian methods can compensate for small sample sizes, which is a main challenge of SCEDs. Two simulation-driven approaches: Bayesian unknown change-point model (BUCP) and simulation modeling analysis (SMA) were compared in the present study for three real datasets that exhibit “clear” immediacy, “unclear” immediacy, and delayed effects. Although SMA estimates can be used to answer some aspects of functional relationship between the independent and the outcome variables, they cannot address immediacy or provide an effect size estimate that considers autocorrelation as required by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards. BUCP overcomes these drawbacks of SMA. In final analysis, it is recommended that both visual and statistical analyses be conducted for a thorough analysis of SCEDs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7843386/ /pubmed/33519641 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.617047 Text en Copyright © 2021 Natesan Batley, Nandakumar, Palka and Shrestha. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychology Natesan Batley, Prathiba Nandakumar, Ratna Palka, Jayme M. Shrestha, Pragya Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title | Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title_full | Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title_fullStr | Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title_short | Comparing the Bayesian Unknown Change-Point Model and Simulation Modeling Analysis to Analyze Single Case Experimental Designs |
title_sort | comparing the bayesian unknown change-point model and simulation modeling analysis to analyze single case experimental designs |
topic | Psychology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7843386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33519641 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.617047 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT natesanbatleyprathiba comparingthebayesianunknownchangepointmodelandsimulationmodelinganalysistoanalyzesinglecaseexperimentaldesigns AT nandakumarratna comparingthebayesianunknownchangepointmodelandsimulationmodelinganalysistoanalyzesinglecaseexperimentaldesigns AT palkajaymem comparingthebayesianunknownchangepointmodelandsimulationmodelinganalysistoanalyzesinglecaseexperimentaldesigns AT shresthapragya comparingthebayesianunknownchangepointmodelandsimulationmodelinganalysistoanalyzesinglecaseexperimentaldesigns |