Sham Elyssa, Smith Tristram
University of Rochester Medical Center.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Fall;47(3):663-78. doi: 10.1002/jaba.146. Epub 2014 Jul 3.
Publication bias arises when studies with favorable results are more likely to be reported than are studies with null findings. If this bias occurs in studies with single-subject experimental designs(SSEDs) on applied behavior-analytic (ABA) interventions, it could lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention effects. Therefore, we conducted an initial test of bias by comparing effect sizes, measured by percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND), in published SSED studies (n=21) and unpublished dissertations (n=10) on 1 well-established intervention for children with autism, pivotal response treatment (PRT). Although published and unpublished studies had similar methodologies, the mean PND in published studies was 22% higher than in unpublished studies, 95% confidence interval (4%, 38%). Even when unpublished studies are included, PRT appeared to be effective (PNDM=62%). Nevertheless, the disparity between published and unpublished studies suggests a need for further assessment of publication bias in the ABA literature.
当具有有利结果的研究比具有无效结果的研究更有可能被报告时，就会出现发表偏倚。如果这种偏倚出现在应用行为分析（ABA）干预的单受试者实验设计（SSED）研究中，可能会导致对干预效果的估计过高。因此，我们通过比较已发表的SSED研究（n = 21）和未发表的论文（n = 10）中关于一种成熟的自闭症儿童干预方法——关键反应训练（PRT）的效应量（以非重叠数据百分比（PND）衡量），对偏倚进行了初步测试。尽管已发表和未发表的研究方法相似，但已发表研究中的平均PND比未发表研究高22%，95%置信区间为（4%，38%）。即使纳入未发表的研究，PRT似乎也是有效的（平均PND = 62%）。然而，已发表和未发表研究之间的差异表明，需要进一步评估ABA文献中的发表偏倚。
