Cargando…
Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs
In our previous article on threats to internal validity of multiple baseline design variations (Slocum et al., 2022), we argued that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs (NCMB) are capable of rigorously demonstrating experimental control and should be considered equivalent to concurrent multiple...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36249172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00351-0 |
_version_ | 1784786363181170688 |
---|---|
author | Slocum, Timothy A. Joslyn, P. Raymond Nichols, Beverly Pinkelman, Sarah E. |
author_facet | Slocum, Timothy A. Joslyn, P. Raymond Nichols, Beverly Pinkelman, Sarah E. |
author_sort | Slocum, Timothy A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | In our previous article on threats to internal validity of multiple baseline design variations (Slocum et al., 2022), we argued that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs (NCMB) are capable of rigorously demonstrating experimental control and should be considered equivalent to concurrent multiple baselines (CMB) in terms of internal validity. We were fortunate to receive five excellent commentaries on our article from experts in single-subject research design—four of whom endorsed the conclusion that NCMBs should be considered strong experimental designs capable of demonstrating experimental control. In the current article, we address the most salient points made in the five commentaries by further elaborating and clarifying the logic described in our original article. We address arguments related to classic threats including maturation, testing and session experience, and coincidental events (history). We rebut the notion that although NCMBs are strong, CMBs provide an increment of additional control and discuss the application of probability-based analysis of the likelihood of threats to internal validity. We conclude by emphasizing our agreement with many of the commentaries that selection of single-case experimental designs should be based on the myriad subtleties of research priorities and contextual factors rather than on a decontextualized hierarchy of designs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9458797 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94587972022-10-14 Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs Slocum, Timothy A. Joslyn, P. Raymond Nichols, Beverly Pinkelman, Sarah E. Perspect Behav Sci SI: Commentary on Slocum et al, Threats to Internal Validity In our previous article on threats to internal validity of multiple baseline design variations (Slocum et al., 2022), we argued that nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs (NCMB) are capable of rigorously demonstrating experimental control and should be considered equivalent to concurrent multiple baselines (CMB) in terms of internal validity. We were fortunate to receive five excellent commentaries on our article from experts in single-subject research design—four of whom endorsed the conclusion that NCMBs should be considered strong experimental designs capable of demonstrating experimental control. In the current article, we address the most salient points made in the five commentaries by further elaborating and clarifying the logic described in our original article. We address arguments related to classic threats including maturation, testing and session experience, and coincidental events (history). We rebut the notion that although NCMBs are strong, CMBs provide an increment of additional control and discuss the application of probability-based analysis of the likelihood of threats to internal validity. We conclude by emphasizing our agreement with many of the commentaries that selection of single-case experimental designs should be based on the myriad subtleties of research priorities and contextual factors rather than on a decontextualized hierarchy of designs. Springer International Publishing 2022-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9458797/ /pubmed/36249172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00351-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | SI: Commentary on Slocum et al, Threats to Internal Validity Slocum, Timothy A. Joslyn, P. Raymond Nichols, Beverly Pinkelman, Sarah E. Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title | Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title_full | Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title_fullStr | Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title_full_unstemmed | Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title_short | Revisiting an Analysis of Threats to Internal Validity in Multiple Baseline Designs |
title_sort | revisiting an analysis of threats to internal validity in multiple baseline designs |
topic | SI: Commentary on Slocum et al, Threats to Internal Validity |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458797/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36249172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00351-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT slocumtimothya revisitingananalysisofthreatstointernalvalidityinmultiplebaselinedesigns AT joslynpraymond revisitingananalysisofthreatstointernalvalidityinmultiplebaselinedesigns AT nicholsbeverly revisitingananalysisofthreatstointernalvalidityinmultiplebaselinedesigns AT pinkelmansarahe revisitingananalysisofthreatstointernalvalidityinmultiplebaselinedesigns |