Falligant John Michael, Kranak Michael P, Schmidt Jonathan D, Rooker Griffin W
Kennedy Krieger Institute & Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 707 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2020 May 20;43(2):303-319. doi: 10.1007/s40614-020-00255-x. eCollection 2020 Jun.
Barnard-Brak, Richman, Little, and Yang (, 8-15, 2018) developed a structured-criteria metric, fail-safe , which quantifies the stability of data series within single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) using published baseline and treatment data. Fail-safe suggests the optimal point in time to change phases (e.g., move from Phase B to Phase C, reverse back to Phase A). However, this tool has not been tested with clinical data obtained in the course of care. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to replicate the procedures described by Barnard-Brak et al. with clinical data. We also evaluated the correspondence between the fail-safe metric with outcomes obtained via dual-criteria and conservative-dual criteria methods, which are empirically supported methods for evaluating data-series trends within SCEDs. Our results provide some degree of support for use of this approach as a research tool with clinical data, in particular when evaluating small or medium treatment effect sizes, but further research is needed before this can be used widely by practitioners.
巴纳德 - 布拉克、里奇曼、利特尔和杨（《，8 - 15，2018》）开发了一种结构化标准度量方法——失效安全法，该方法使用已发表的基线和治疗数据来量化单病例实验设计（SCEDs）中数据系列的稳定性。失效安全法能表明改变阶段的最佳时间点（例如，从B阶段进入C阶段，或回到A阶段）。然而，该工具尚未在护理过程中获得的临床数据上进行测试。因此，本研究的目的是用临床数据重复巴纳德 - 布拉克等人所描述的程序。我们还评估了失效安全法度量与通过双标准和保守双标准方法获得的结果之间的对应关系，这两种方法是评估SCEDs中数据系列趋势的实证支持方法。我们的结果为将这种方法用作临床数据研究工具提供了一定程度的支持，特别是在评估中小治疗效应大小时，但在从业者广泛使用之前还需要进一步研究。
