Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Standardized Mean Difference for Single-Case Designs/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

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

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Between-Case Standardized Mean Difference Effect Size for Single-Case Designs (Hedges-Pustejovsky-Shadish d)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · 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
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

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.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

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

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto