University of Kansas.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):167-72. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167.
The advent of statistical methods for evaluating the data of individual-subject designs invites a comparison of the usual research tactics of the group-design paradigm and the individual-subject-design paradigm. That comparison can hinge on the concept of assigning probabilities of Type 1 and Type 2 errors. Individual-subject designs are usually interpreted with implicit, very low probabilities of Type 1 errors, and correspondingly high probabilities of Type 1 errors, and correspondingly high probabilities of Type 2 errors. Group designs are usually interpreted with explicit, moderately low probabilities of Type 1 errors, and therefore with not such high probabilities of Type 2 errors as in the other paradigm. This difference may seem to be a minor one, considered in terms of centiles on a probability scale. However, when it is interpreted in terms of the substantive kinds of results likely to be produced by each paradigm, it appears that the individual-subject-design paradigm is more likely to contribute to the development of a technology of behavior, and it is suggested that this orientation should not be abandoned.
个体设计数据的统计方法的出现，使得个体设计范式和群组设计范式的常用研究策略的比较成为可能。这种比较可能取决于分配 1 类和 2 类错误概率的概念。个体设计通常被解释为具有隐含的、非常低的 1 类错误概率，以及相应的高 2 类错误概率。群组设计通常被解释为具有明确的、中等低的 1 类错误概率，因此与另一种范式相比，2 类错误的概率不会那么高。从概率尺度上的百分位数来看，这种差异似乎很小。然而，当从每个范式可能产生的实质性结果的角度来解释时，个体设计范式似乎更有可能有助于行为技术的发展，因此建议不要放弃这种方向。
