Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Horn, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Heerboth, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Horn, W. F.
Right arrow Articles by Heerboth, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, 403-424 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8200600304


Other

Single-Case Experimental Designs and Program Evaluation

Wade F. Horn

Children's Hospital National Medical Center Washington, D C.

Joel Heerboth

Southern Illinois University

Single-case experimental designs have received little attention in the program evaluation literature. This article provides an overview of single-case methodology, with a specific focus on the A-B-A and multiple baseline designs. The potential utility of these designs for evaluating social programs is discussed, and several examples are provided. Internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, construct validity, and cost-effec tiveness are considered. Single-case designs offer essentially equivalent protection against threats to experimental validity compared to traditional randomized group designs. It appears that these designs offer, at a minimum, viable methodological alternatives in situations where traditional randomized group designs are infeasible.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eval RevHome page
P. J. Gruenewald
Analysis Approaches To Community Evaluation
Eval Rev, April 1, 1997; 21(2): 209 - 230.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
M. Hennessy
What Works in Program Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation, October 1, 1995; 16(3): 275 - 278.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
International Social WorkHome page
R. J. Mancoske and Y. L. Pui-fong
Practice evaluation attitudes: Hong Kong social workers
International Social Work, January 1, 1990; 33(4): 311 - 324.
[PDF]


Home page
Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
S. Jayaratne, T. Tripodi, and E. Talsma
The Comparative Analysis and Aggregation of Single-Case Data
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, February 1, 1988; 24(1): 119 - 128.
[Abstract] [PDF]