Сравнение на методи

	Celeration Line Analysis	Single-System Design
Област	Social Work	Social Work
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Година на възникване	1972	2009
Създател	Owen R. White & the precision-teaching tradition; codified for social work by Bloom, Fischer & Orme	Martin Bloom, Joel Fischer & John G. Orme (codification in social work)
Тип	Trend-line procedure for projecting baseline trend into the intervention phase	Time-series design for evaluating intervention with a single client system
Основополагащ източник	Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195341881	Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional (6th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 9780205458066
Други названия	Celeration Line, Split-Middle Method, Trend Line Analysis (Single-Case), Celeration Approach	Single-Subject Design, Single-Case Design, N-of-1 Design, Single-System Evaluation
Свързани	4	4
Резюме	Celeration line analysis is a single-case method that fits a trend line to the baseline phase, projects that line forward into the intervention phase, and judges effect by how many intervention data points fall on the improvement side of the projected trend. Built on Owen White's split-middle technique from precision teaching and codified for social-work practice by Bloom, Fischer, and Orme, it directly addresses a weakness of level-only comparisons: it asks whether the client improved beyond the trajectory the baseline was already on, and pairs the count with a simple binomial test for statistical decision-making.	A single-system design is a time-series approach to evaluating practice in which a single client system — an individual, family, group, or organization — is measured repeatedly on a clearly defined target before and during (and sometimes after) an intervention. By tracking the same system over time rather than comparing a treatment group to a control group, it lets a practitioner judge whether their own intervention is associated with change in the people they actually serve. It is the methodological backbone of the 'accountable professional' tradition codified by Bloom, Fischer, and Orme.