Journals / Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2

Investigation of Five Nonoverlap Methods to Calculate Effect Sizes in Single-Case Research

Tek Denekli Araştırmalarda Etki Büyüklüğü Hesaplamada Kullanılan Örtüşmeyen Veriye Dayalı Yöntemlerin İncelenmesi

Pages
291–306
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Considering their compatibility with visual analysis, it was determined that Tau-U and IRD performed slightly better than other methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Evidence-based practices (EBPs) include teaching methods and strategies aimed at improving learning outcomes of all children in schools.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, effect size calculations and visual analyzes were performed using five methods for each of 222 graphs obtained from SCER studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Considering their compatibility with visual analysis, it was determined that Tau-U and IRD performed slightly better than other methods.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) include teaching methods and strategies aimed at improving learning outcomes of all children in schools. In recent years, movement to determine EBPs in education has expanded use of meta -analysis and led to development of effect size calculation methods in single-case experimental research (SCER). The purpose of this study was to examine five nonoverlap methods developed for effect size calculations in SCER. In this study, effect size calculations and visual analyzes were performed using five methods for each of 222 graphs obtained from SCER studies. Findings of the study revealed that four of thefive methods (IRD, Tau-U, TauNovlap, and Phi) were highly correlated with each other and there were high levels of agreement between effect size estimates calculated using these methods and visual analysis. Considering their compatibility with visual analysis, it was determined that Tau-U and IRD performed slightly better than other methods.

Özet

Bilimsel dayanaklı uygulamalar (BDU), okullarda tüm çocukların öğrenme çıktılarını iyileştirmeyi amaçlayan öğretim yöntem ve stratejilerini içermektedir. Son yıllarda, eğitim alanında BDU’ların belirlenmesine yönelik hareket, meta-analiz uygulamalarını yaygınlaştırmış ve tek denekli deneysel araştırma (TDA) gibi alanlarda etki büyüklüğü hesaplama yöntemlerin geliştirilmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, TDA bağlamında etki büyüklüğü hesaplamaları için geliştirilen beş yöntemi (TauÖrtüşmeme, Tau-U, Phi, robust Phi ve İLOF) karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Çalışma kapsamında TDA’lardan elde edilen 222 grafiğin her biri için beş yöntem kullanılarak etki büyüklüğü hesaplamaları ile görsel analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu analizler sonucu elde edilen veriler karşılaştırılarak incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, incelenen beş yöntemden dördünün (İLOF, Tau-U, TauÖrtüşmeme ve Phi) birbirleriyle çok yüksek düzeyde korelasyona sahip olduğunu ve bu yöntemler kullanılarak hesaplanan etki büyüklüğü değerleri ile görsel analiz sonuçları arasında yüksek düzeyde bir uyum olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, görsel analiz ile uyumları dikkate alındığından Tau-U ve İLOF yöntemlerinin diğer yöntemlere kıyasla daha iyi performans gösterdiği belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BALIKCI, Ş., KALKAN, S., RAKAP, S., AKEMOĞLU, Y. (2022). Investigation of Five Nonoverlap Methods to Calculate Effect Sizes in Single-Case Research. Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 36 - Sayı: 2, 291–306. https://ajindex.com/articles/646519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (1993). Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: The case of the single case. Behavior Research and Therapy, 31(6), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(93)90115-B
  2. Baer, D. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167
  3. Beretvas, S. N., & Chung, H. (2008). A review of single-subject experimental design meta-analyses: Methodological issues and practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(3), 129- 141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802446302
  4. Biosoft. (2004). UnGraph for Windows (Version 5.0). Author. Bouck, E. C., Long, H., & Park, J. (2021). Using a virtual number line and corrective feedback to teach addition of integers to middle school students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 33(1), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09735-z
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde bı̇lı̇msel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289
  6. Campbell, J. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single -subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28(2), 234-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259264
  7. Campbell, J. (2013). Commentary on PND at 25. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512454725
  8. Center, B. J., Skiba, R. J., & Casey, A. (1985-86). A methodology for the quantitative synthesis of intra -subject design research. Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698501900404
  9. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500306
  10. DeProspero, A., & Cohen, S. (1979). Inconsistent visual analysis of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 573-579. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-573
  11. Gage, N. A. & Lewis, T. J. (2012). HLM -meta-analysis of single-subject design research. Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/.1177/0022466912443894
  12. Gulboy, E., Yucesoy-Ozkan, S., & Rakap, S. (2021). Embedded instruction in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of single-case experimental research studies. Under Review. Hedges, L. G., Pustejovsky, J., & Shadish, W. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effe