Abstract
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.
Keywords: individual-subject design, group design, Type 1 error, Type 2 error, inferential statistics
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Gentile J. R., Roden A. H., Klein R. D. An analysis-of-variance model for the intrasubject replication design. J Appl Behav Anal. 1972 Summer;5(2):193–198. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1972.5-193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones R. R., Vaught R. S., Weinrott M. Time-series analysis in operant research. J Appl Behav Anal. 1977 Spring;10(1):151–166. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]