Data Analysis Notes
Background
SCED logic is similar to experimental research in any discipline.
Aims to isolate causal relationships between independent variables (IVs) and dependent variables (DVs).
Nomothetic/group data aims to ascertain generalizable principles/laws.
Idiographic/SCD data aims to draw conclusions at the individual level.
Interpretation and analysis involve different criteria.
Validity Reminders
External Validity: The degree to which findings can be extended beyond the subject population, settings, measures, etc.
Internal Validity: The degree of confidence that the change in the DV was due to the manipulation of the IV and not to another factor.
The strength of a design (group or SCD) lies in its ability to eliminate alternative explanations.
Alternative explanations are also known as threats to internal validity, confounds, or extraneous variables.
A sound study ensures that the IV caused the change in the DV.
Threats to Internal Validity
Maturation Effect: Changes in the DV might be attributable to developmental, biological, or psychological processes.
Examples include puberty.
History Effect: Changes in the DV might be attributable to an event outside of the experimenter’s control.
Examples include a tornado or a fire.
Regression Toward the Mean: High/low scores that are statistically rare will move toward normative values in the absence of treatment.
Name That Threat!
Severe weather: History.
Participants getting older during the study: Maturation.
Attending support groups: History; maturation if it is over a longer period.
California wildfire (e.g., Camp fire): History.
Medication change: Maturation.
Clinically depressed patients serving as participants: Regression toward the mean.
Combating Threats
All studies have limitations.
Researchers use the following to control for threats:
Replication (both intrasubject and intersubject).
At least 3 phase changes. The more phase changes, the more control.
Repeated measurement of DV.
This helps combat threats to internal validity.
Visual Analysis
Data in SCD are mostly presented via line graphs.
Visual inspection remains a viable, long-practiced method of analysis.
Underlying rationale: Investigators seek variables that attain potent effects that should be obvious from merely inspecting your data.
Visual inspection is viewed as a more conservative measure than statistical evaluation in between-groups designs.
If the effect isn’t visually obvious, the treatment may not be effective.
SCED is more likely to have Type 2 errors.
Visual Inspection Criteria
Criteria for visual inspection depend on:
Magnitude of changes across phases
Mean
Level
Rate of change
Trend/slope
Latency
Visual Inspection Criteria: Changes
Changes in means: Refers to shifts in the average rate of performance.
Changes in level: Refers to the shift or discontinuity of performance from the end of one phase to the beginning of the next phase.
Change in level is independent of change in mean.
Changes in trend: Refers to the tendency for data to show increases or decreases over time.
Latency of the change: Refers to the period between the onset or termination of one condition and changes in performance.
Visual Inspection Criteria: Examples
Changes in Means are demonstrated via graph.
Changes in Means vs. Level are demonstrated via graph.
Changes in Level are demonstrated via graph.
Changes in Trend/Slope are demonstrated via graph.
Latency of the Change is demonstrated via graph.
Weisman, 2006 Increasing % of opportunities of fast-food employees asking customers to “up-size”.
Changes in means - Yes
Changes in level - Yes
Changes in trend/slope - Yes/No
Latency of change - Yes for both
Visual Inspection Concerns
Beyond previously mentioned criteria, also consider:
Variability within and across phases
Stability
Replication of effects
Experimental design used
Concerns:
No concrete decision rules (i.e., subjectivity).
Multiple influences in reaching a decision (i.e., no weights assigned to various criteria).
Search for only marked effects (i.e., overlooking weak but reliable effects; Type II errors)
Benefits of Graphic Displays and Visual Analysis
Immediate access to the record of behavior
Variations prompt exploration
Provides judgmental aid
Visual analysis takes less time and is relatively easy to learn
Imposes no arbitrary level for determining significance
Conservative method
Encourages independent judgments and interpretations
Quantitative Analysis
Many believe visual inspection should be used in conjunction with quantitative analysis
Refers to a large collection of mathematical practices:
Mean lines
Trend lines/split-middle line of progress/least squares regression line
Dual-criteria analysis/conservative dual criteria analysis
Effect sizes (e.g., percentage of nonoverlapping data; PND)
Statistical process control (SPC) charts
Tests of statistical significance
Questionable PND
PND Interpretation displayed via graph.
Statistical Significance Tests
Highly controversial!
One main assumption needed: “independent observation.”
Each observation is independent of every other observation.
Easily met in group designs (obs 1 for subject 1, obs 2 for subject 2, etc.).
Not the case in SCDs (serial dependency; AKA: autocorrelation).
Another large shortcoming of “inferential statistics”:
Generally the aim of group designs/nomothetic approach.
Not typically the aim of SCDs/idiographic approach.
Therefore, much disagreement in this area.
Summary
SCD research → causes of bx change across different phases of a study
Researchers attempt to control for threats via:
Replication
Repeated measurement
Visual inspection historically used to evaluate effects
Large between-phase changes more easily observed
Might increase Type II errors
Some argue visual inspection is inherently biased
Critics → adopt quantitative analysis
However, no consensus exists re: which methods are best
Authors recommend: both visual and quantitative analysis