Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature

Pelagie M Beeson, Randall R. Robey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

316 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)161-169
Number of pages9
JournalNeuropsychology Review
Volume16
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Aphasia
Research
Evidence-Based Practice
Meta-Analysis
Research Design
Research Personnel
Weights and Measures
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Effect size
  • Evidence based practice
  • Meta-analysis
  • Outcomes
  • Rehabilitation
  • Stroke
  • Treatment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Evaluating single-subject treatment research : Lessons learned from the aphasia literature. / Beeson, Pelagie M; Robey, Randall R.

In: Neuropsychology Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 12.2006, p. 161-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{28338c2c544f4949aa40ea5cffb6e795,
title = "Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned from the aphasia literature",
abstract = "The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.",
keywords = "Effect size, Evidence based practice, Meta-analysis, Outcomes, Rehabilitation, Stroke, Treatment",
author = "Beeson, {Pelagie M} and Robey, {Randall R.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "161--169",
journal = "Neuropsychology Review",
issn = "1040-7308",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating single-subject treatment research

T2 - Lessons learned from the aphasia literature

AU - Beeson, Pelagie M

AU - Robey, Randall R.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.

AB - The mandate for evidence-based practice has prompted careful consideration of the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic value of various clinical treatments. In the field of aphasia, a large number of single-subject research studies have been conducted, providing clinical outcome data that are potentially useful for clinicians and researchers; however, it has been difficult to discern the relative potency of these treatments in a standardized manner. In this paper we describe an approach to quantify treatment outcomes for single-subject research studies using effect sizes. These values provide a means to compare treatment outcomes within and between individuals, as well as to compare the relative strength of various treatments. Effect sizes also can be aggregated in order to conduct meta-analyses of specific treatment approaches. Consideration is given to optimizing research designs and providing adequate data so that the value of treatment research is maximized.

KW - Effect size

KW - Evidence based practice

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Outcomes

KW - Rehabilitation

KW - Stroke

KW - Treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845907907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845907907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7

DO - 10.1007/s11065-006-9013-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 17151940

AN - SCOPUS:33845907907

VL - 16

SP - 161

EP - 169

JO - Neuropsychology Review

JF - Neuropsychology Review

SN - 1040-7308

IS - 4

ER -