Kennedy Krieger Institute & Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Kennedy Krieger Institute.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Jul;53(3):1789-1798. doi: 10.1002/jaba.665. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
The dual-criteria and conservative dual-criteria methods effectively supplement visual analysis with both simulated and published datasets. However, extant research evaluating the probability of observing false positive outcomes with published data may be affected by case selection bias and publication bias. Thus, the probability of obtaining false positive outcomes using these methods with data collected in the course of clinical care is unknown. We extracted baseline data from clinical datasets using a consecutive controlled case-series design and calculated the proportion of false positive outcomes for baseline phases of various lengths. Results replicated previous findings from Lanovaz, Huxley, and Dufour (2017), as the proportion of false positive outcomes generally decreased as the number of points in Phase B (but not Phase A) increased using both methods. Extending these findings, results also revealed differences in the rate of false positive outcomes across different types of baselines.
双标准和保守双标准方法有效地补充了模拟和已发表数据集的视觉分析。然而,评估使用已发表数据观察到假阳性结果的概率的现有研究可能受到病例选择偏倚和发表偏倚的影响。因此,使用这些方法在临床护理过程中收集的数据获得假阳性结果的概率尚不清楚。我们使用连续对照病例系列设计从临床数据集提取基线数据,并计算各种长度的基线阶段的假阳性结果比例。结果复制了 Lanovaz、Huxley 和 Dufour(2017 年)的先前发现,因为两种方法中,随着 B 期(而不是 A 期)点数的增加,假阳性结果的比例通常会降低。扩展这些发现,结果还揭示了不同类型的基线之间假阳性结果率的差异。