Methoden vergelijken

	Tau-U	Single-System Design
Vakgebied	Social Work	Social Work
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	2011	2009
Grondlegger	Richard I. Parker, Kimberly J. Vannest, John L. Davis & Stephanie B. Sauber	Martin Bloom, Joel Fischer & John G. Orme (codification in social work)
Type	Rank-based nonoverlap effect size that can correct for baseline trend	Time-series design for evaluating intervention with a single client system
Oorspronkelijke bron	Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299.	Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional (6th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 9780205458066
Aliassen	Tau-U Single-Case, Parker Tau-U, Kendall Tau Nonoverlap, Tau-U Effect Size	Single-Subject Design, Single-Case Design, N-of-1 Design, Single-System Evaluation
Verwant	4	4
Samenvatting	Tau-U is a rank-based effect-size index for single-case research that combines the degree of nonoverlap between baseline and treatment phases with the trend within phases, and that can optionally subtract out any improving trend already present in the baseline. Developed by Richard Parker, Kimberly Vannest, and colleagues in 2011, it extends the Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) statistic by adding a Kendall-style trend component, giving practitioners a single index that is robust to outliers, has a known sampling distribution for significance testing, and does not unfairly credit a treatment for change that the baseline was already heading toward.	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.