Meta-Analysis for Single-Subject Research: When Does It Clarify, When Does It Obscure?
Document Type
Article
Journal/Book Title/Conference
Remedial and Special Education
Volume
8
Issue
2
Publication Date
1987
First Page
43
Last Page
48
Abstract
Comments on the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) approach proposed by T. E. Scruggs et al (see record 1987-29788-001) for synthesizing single-S research. The present authors take issue with the PND method, which reduces functional analyses to a 1-number summary, for the following reasons: (a) the most relevant and credible evidence from single-S designs lies in the patterns of change across time; (b) summaries based on PND may miss vital idiosyncracies in behavior within and across studies; (c) syntheses of literature based on PND may misrepresent procedural facts and outcomes; and (d) syntheses based on PND attempt, inappropriately, to draw conclusions about the relative merits of broad categories of intervention.
Recommended Citation
Salzberg, C. L., Strain, P. S., & Baer, D. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure? Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 43-48.