Table 3.
Results for Research Quality Standards, Effect Size, Number of A-B Comparisons, and Procedural Integrity.
| Number Label for Figure 2 | Authors | Year | Type | Quality Standards | Effect Size | Number of A-B Comparisons | Procedural Integritya |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akande | 2000 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 1 | Akmanoglu | 2015 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.911 | 12 | 20% of baseline and intervention;100%. |
| Akmanoglu-Uludag & Batu | 2005 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 20% of baseline and intervention;100%. | |||
| 2 | Barbera & Kubina | 2005 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.92 | 3 | NR |
| 3 | Bloh | 2008 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.629 (e-t) Tau-U = 0.627 (r-e-t) | 24 | NR |
| 4 | |||||||
| 5 | Byrne et al. | 2014 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.531 | 3 | 35% of all sessions; P1 99.9 %, P2 99.5 %, P3 99.9% |
| Carbone et al. | 2006 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 6 | Cengher & Fienup (Study 1) | 2019 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 1 (NPA) Tau-U = 0.973 (PA) | 6 | NR |
| 7 | |||||||
| Cihon et al. | 2019 | Group design | Meets with reservations | Cohen’s d = .56 (primary DV) | 25%, 25%, and 27% of all sessions; 99.7%, 99.5%, and 99.7% | ||
| Conallen & Reed | 2016 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | No graph | 20% of sessions; No score reported | ||
| Conallen & Reed (Study 1) | 2017 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 8 | Dass et al. | 2018 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.692 | 3 | 100% of sessions; P1 100%, P2 100%, P3 98% |
| 9 | Delfs et al. | 2014 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.816 | 11 | NR |
| 10 | Dixon et al. | 2017 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.988 | 5 | Mentions fidelity data was collected; No details reported |
| 11 | Dueñas, et al. | 2019 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.756 | 9 | 33% of sessions; Baseline 95%, intervention 96% |
| 12 | Frampton et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.971 | 7 | 50%, 36%, 65%, 50%, 22% assessed per participant; P1 100%, P2 100%, P3 99.8%, P4 99.8%, P5 99% |
| Frampton, et al. | 2017 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 30% across participants; 99% | |||
| 13 | Frampton et al. | 2019 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.943 | 6 | 44.68%, 32%, 0%, 20%, 25%, 41.67% per participant; P1 99.89%, P2 100%, P3 not collected, P4 100%, P5 100%, P6 99.72% |
| 14 | Giunta-Fede et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.899 (CM) | 9 | 100% of DTT sessions; P1 99%, P2 99%, P3 99% |
| Greenberg et al. | 2014 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| Greer & Du | 2010 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| Grow et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 15 | Hanney et al. | 2019 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.48 (isolated) Tau-U = 0.707 (compound) | 4 | 40% of all tact-training trials; exceeded 98% |
| 16 | |||||||
| Jimenez-Gomez et al. | 2019 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 17 | Kelley et al. | 2007 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.925 | 7 | NR |
| 18 | Kelly & Holloway | 2015 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.812 | 9 | NR |
| Kodak & Clements | 2009 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Cannot calculate | NR | ||
| 19 | Leaf et al. | 2011 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.908 | 7 | 41.9% of all intervention sessions; 97.9% |
| 20 | Leaf et al. | 2014 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.961 (EC) Tau-U = 0.826 (MTL) | 12 | EC 37% and MTL 34% of sessions; EC 99.1% MTL 98.1% |
| 21 | |||||||
| Leaf et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Does not meet | SE 37% and MA 36% of sessions; 99% | |||
| Leaf et al. | 2017 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 29% of probes and 23% of teaching; 99% | |||
| Lorah & Parnell | 2017 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 100% collected; No scores given | |||
| Lydon et al. | 2009 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 22 | Majdalany et al. | 2014 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.915 (massed) | 18 | minimum 30% per participant; 99% |
| 23 | Tau-U = 0.889 (distributed) | ||||||
| 24 | Tau-U = 0.837 (interspersed) | ||||||
| 25 | Majdalany et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.911 (0 s) | 9 | 50% per participant; 100% |
| 26 | Tau-U = 0.908 (6 s) | ||||||
| 27 | Tau-U = 0.847 (12 s) | ||||||
| 28 | Marchese et al. | 2012 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.956 (object) | 8 | 50% baseline, 27% training, 33% maintenance-evaluation sessions; 100%, 96%, 98% |
| 29 | Tau-U = 0.957 (object + question) | ||||||
| 30 | McHugh et al. | 2011 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 1 | 12 | NR |
| Miguel & Kobari-Wright (Study 1) | 2013 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 82% of sessions; P1 100%, P2 99% | |||
| Naoi et al. | 2007 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| Pistoljevic & Greer | 2006 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| Ryan & Charragain | 2010 | Group design | Meets with reservations | Cohen’s d = 1.42 | NR | ||
| Scattone & Billhofer | 2008 | Single-case design | No graph | NR | |||
| 31 | Schebell et al. | 2018 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.493 (pictures) | 6 | at least 30% of sessions; 100% |
| 32 | Tau-U = 0.457 (videos) | ||||||
| 33 | Schnell et al. | 2018 | Single-case design | Meets | Tau-U = 0.699 (SMET) | 9 | 33% of sessions; P1 100%, P2 100%, P3 99% |
| 34 | Tau-U = 0.708 (CMET) | ||||||
| 35 | Tau-U = 0.626 (IF) | ||||||
| 36 | Shepley et al. | 2016 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.775 | 6 | minimum 20% for each condition; 99.4% |
| Sidener et al. | 2010 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 48% of sessions; 98% | |||
| Simpson & Keen | 2010 | Single-case design | Does not meet | Data collection was automated via computer | |||
| Sprinkle & Miguel | 2012 | Single-case design | Does not meet | 33% across participants; 96.7% | |||
| Sundberg et al. | 2000 | Single-case design | Does not meet | NR | |||
| 37 | Valentino & Shillingsburg | 2011 | Single-case design | Meets with reservations | Tau-U = 0.501 | 3 | 53% of sessions; 99% |
| Williams et al. | 2006 | Single-case design | No graph | NR |
Note: NR = Not Reported; P = Participant (e.g., P1 = Participant 1, P2 = Participant 2).
aProcedural Integrity is presented by the ratio of procedural integrity data collected; followed by the average score reported.