Optimal number of baseline sessions before changing phases within single-case experimental designs

Waiting for baseline stability in single-case designs: Is it worth the time and effort?

Researchers and practitioners often use single-case designs (SCDs), or n-of-1 trials, to develop and validate novel treatments. Standards and guidelines have been published to provide guidance as to how to implement SCDs, but many of their recommendations are not derived from the research literature. For example, one of these recommendations suggests that researchers and practitioners should wait for baseline stability prior to introducing an independent variable. However, this recommendation is not strongly supported by empirical evidence. To address this issue, we used Monte Carlo simulations to generate graphs with fixed, response-guided, and random baseline lengths while manipulating trend and variability. Then, our analyses compared the type I error rate and power produced by two methods of analysis: the conservative dual-criteria method (a structured visual aid) and a support vector classifier (a model derived from machine learning). The conservative dual-criteria method produced fewer errors when using response-guided decision-making (i.e., waiting for stability) and random baseline lengths. In contrast, waiting for stability did not reduce decision-making errors with the support vector classifier. Our findings question the necessity of waiting for baseline stability when using SCDs with machine learning, but the study must be replicated with other designs and graph parameters that change over time to support our results.

Defining and assessing immediacy in single-case experimental designs

Immediacy is one of six data aspects (alongside level, trend, variability, overlap, and consistency) that has to be accounted for when visually analyzing single-case data. Given that it is one of the aspects that has received considerably less attention than other data aspects, the current text offers a review of the proposed conceptual definitions of immediacy (i.e., what it refers to) and also of the suggested operational definitions (i.e., how exactly is it assessed and/or quantified). Provided that a variety of conceptual and operational definitions is identified, we propose following a sensitivity analysis using a randomization test for assessing immediate effects in single-case experimental designs, by identifying when changes were most clear. In such a sensitivity analysis, the immediate effects are tested for multiple possible intervention points and for different possible operational definitions. Robust immediate effects can be detected if the results for the different operational definitions converge.