Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Standardized Mean Difference for Single-Case Designs/Evidence
Method evidence record

Standardized Mean Difference for Single-Case Designs

The between-case standardized mean difference is an effect-size measure that puts the result of a single-case experiment on the same numerical scale as Cohen's d from a conventional between-groups study, so that single-case and group findings can be combined in the same meta-analysis. Developed by Larry Hedges, James Pustejovsky, and William Shadish in 2012, it solves a long-standing problem: the many ad hoc nonoverlap indices used in single-case research (PND, PAND, IRD, Tau-U) are not comparable in scale to the standardized mean differences that dominate the broader evidence-synthesis literature. Their estimator models the single-case data with a hierarchical model that separates within-case variation from between-case variation, then standardizes the estimated treatment effect by the total standard deviation — the same denominator a between-subjects d would use. A 2013 extension specialized the estimator to multiple-baseline designs across individuals. The result is a design-comparable effect size with a known variance, suitable for disability and special-education research where single-case studies are abundant.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Between-Case Standardized Mean Difference Effect Size for Single-Case Designs (Hedges-Pustejovsky-Shadish d)
Taxonomic method record · regression-model / disability-studies
  • Hedges, L. V., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Shadish, W. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224-239. · DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1052
  • Hedges, L. V., Pustejovsky, J. E., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4(4), 324-341. · DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1086
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Often confused withRandomization Test for Single-Case Designsmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainSingle-Case Experimental Designmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account