Tek Denekli Araştırmalarda Etki Büyüklüğü Hesaplamada Kullanılan Örtüşmeyen Veriye Dayalı Yöntemlerin İncelenmesi

Anahtar Kelimeler: Etki Büyüklüğü, Örtüşmeyen Veriye Dayalı Yöntem, Tek Denekli Deneysel Araştırma, Tau-U, ÖRVEY, Phi, İLOF

Özet

Bilimsel dayanaklı uygulamalar (BDU), okullarda tüm çocukların öğrenme çıktılarını iyileştirmeyi amaçlayan öğretim yöntem ve stratejilerini içermektedir. Son yıllarda, eğitim alanında BDU’ların belirlenmesine yönelik hareket, meta-analiz uygulamalarını yaygınlaştırmış ve tek denekli deneysel araştırma (TDA) gibi alanlarda etki büyüklüğü hesaplama yöntemlerin geliştirilmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, TDA bağlamında etki büyüklüğü hesaplamaları için geliştirilen beş yöntemi (TauÖrtüşmeme, Tau-U, Phi, robust Phi ve İLOF) karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektir. Çalışma kapsamında TDA’lardan elde edilen 222 grafiğin her biri için beş yöntem kullanılarak etki büyüklüğü hesaplamaları ile görsel analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu analizler sonucu elde edilen veriler karşılaştırılarak incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, incelenen beş yöntemden dördünün (İLOF, Tau-U, TauÖrtüşmeme ve Phi) birbirleriyle çok yüksek düzeyde korelasyona sahip olduğunu ve bu yöntemler kullanılarak hesaplanan etki büyüklüğü değerleri ile görsel analiz sonuçları arasında yüksek düzeyde bir uyum olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, görsel analiz ile uyumları dikkate alındığından Tau-U ve İLOF yöntemlerinin diğer yöntemlere kıyasla daha iyi performans gösterdiği belirlenmiştir.

Makalenin İndirilme Oranı

Henüz bir indirme işlemi yapılmamıştır.

Referanslar

Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (1993). Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: The case of the single case. Behavior Research and Therapy, 31(6), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(93)90115-B

Baer, D. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167

Beretvas, S. N., & Chung, H. (2008). A review of single-subject experimental design meta-analyses: Methodological issues and practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(3), 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489530802446302

Biosoft. (2004). UnGraph for Windows (Version 5.0). Author.

Bouck, E. C., Long, H., & Park, J. (2021). Using a virtual number line and corrective feedback to teach addition of integers to middle school students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 33(1), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09735-z

Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde bı̇lı̇msel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289

Campbell, J. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28(2), 234-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259264

Campbell, J. (2013). Commentary on PND at 25. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512454725

Center, B. J., Skiba, R. J., & Casey, A. (1985-86). A methodology for the quantitative synthesis of intra-subject design research. Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698501900404

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500306

DeProspero, A., & Cohen, S. (1979). Inconsistent visual analysis of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 573-579. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-573

Gage, N. A. & Lewis, T. J. (2012). HLM-meta-analysis of single-subject design research. Journal of Special Education. https://doi.org/.1177/0022466912443894

Gulboy, E., Yucesoy-Ozkan, S., & Rakap, S. (2021). Embedded instruction in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of single-case experimental research studies. Under Review.

Hedges, L. G., Pustejovsky, J., & Shadish, W. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single-case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052

Huitema, B. E., & McKean, J. W. (2000). A simple and powerful test for autocorrelated errors in OLS intervention models. Psychological Reports, 87(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.87.1.3

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.

Klingbeil, D. A., Van Norman, E. R., McLendon, K. E., Ross, S. G., & Begeny, J. C. (2019). Evaluating Tau-U with oral reading fluency data and the impact of measurement error. Behavior Modification, 43(3), 413-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518760174

Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.

Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.). (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. Erlbaum.

Kratochwill, T., & Levin, J. (2006). Single-case research design and analysis: Applications in educational intervention research. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=554

Ma, H. H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject researches: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 598-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445504272974

Maggin, D. M., Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2013). An application of the What Works Clearinghouse standards for evaluating single-subject research: Synthesis of the self-management literature-base. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511435176

Maggin, D. M., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., O’Keeffe, B. V., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2011). A generalized least squares regression approach for computing effect sizes in single-case research: Application examples. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.004

Manolov, R., & Solanas, A. (2013). A comparison of mean phase difference and generalized least squares for analyzing single-case data. Journal of School Psychology, 51(2), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.12.005

Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201

Park, H., Marascuilo, L., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1990). Visual inspection and statistical analysis in single-case designs. Journal of Experimental Education, 58(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1990.10806545

Parker, R. I., & Brossart, D. F. (2003). Evaluating single-case data: A comparison of seven statistical methods. Behavior Therapy, 34(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80013-8

Parker, R. I., & Brossart, D. F. (2006). Phase contrasts for multi-phase single case intervention designs. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2006.21.1.46

Parker, R. I., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Median-based overlap analysis for single case data: A second study. Behavior Modification, 31(6), 919-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445507303452

Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, S. (2007). Percentage of all nonoverlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040101

Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs (NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006

Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single-case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500201

Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147

Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

Parsonson, B. S, & Baer, D. M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. T. Kratchowill (Ed.), Single subject research içinde. Academic Press.

Pyle, K., & Fabiano, G. A. (2017). Daily report card intervention and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis of single-case studies. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 378-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917706370

Rakap, S. (2016). Özel eğitimde bilimsel dayanaklı uygulamalar. V. Aksoy (Ed.), Özel eğitim (ss. 181-211) içinde. Pegem Akademi.

Rakap, S., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2011). Effectiveness of embedded instruction in early childhood special education: A literature review. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19, 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2011.548946

Rakap, S., Snyder, P., & Pasia, C. (2014). Comparison of nonoverlap methods for identifying treatment effect in single-subject experimental research. Behavioral Disorders, 39(3), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874291303900303

Rakap, S., Yücesoy-Özkan, Ş., & Kalkan, S. (2020). Tek-denekli Deneysel Araştırmalarda Etki Büyüklüğü Hesaplama: Örtüşmeyen Veriye Dayalı Yöntemlerin İncelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 35(85), 40-60. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd1300443320181023m000015

Salzberg, C. L., Strain, P. S., & Baer, D. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure? Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800209

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512440730

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206

Shadish, W., & Rindskopf, D. (2010). A d-estimator for single case designs. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=953

Snyder, P., Rakap, S., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T., Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2015). Naturalistic instructional approaches in early learning: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Journal of Early Intervention, 37, 69-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115595461

Ugille, M., Moeyaert, M., Beretvas, S., Ferron, J., & Van Den Noortgate, W. (2012). Multilevel meta-analysis of single-subject experimental designs: A simulation study. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 1244-1254. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0213-1

Van Den Noortgate, W., Beretvas, N., & Ferron, J. (2011). Multilevel synthesis of single-case experimental data: Further developments and empirical validation. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=1121

Van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2003). Hierarchical linear models for the quantitative integration of effect sizes in single case research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195492

Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., & Gonen, O. (2011). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0) [Web-based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University. www.singlecaseresearch.org.

Wolery, M., Busick, M., Reichow, B., & Barton, E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908328009

Yucesoy‐Ozkan, S., Rakap, S., & Gulboy, E. (2020). Evaluation of treatment effect estimates in single‐case experimental research: comparison of twelve overlap methods and visual analysis. British Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12294

Yayınlanmış
2022-05-16
Nasıl Atıf Yapılır
Balıkcı, Şerife, Kalkan, S., Rakap, S., & Akemoğlu, Y. (2022). Tek Denekli Araştırmalarda Etki Büyüklüğü Hesaplamada Kullanılan Örtüşmeyen Veriye Dayalı Yöntemlerin İncelenmesi. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 36(2), 291-306. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2022362393
Bölüm
Araştırma Makaleleri