Gingerich (1984) and Busk and Serlin (1992) proposed a within-case standardized mean difference for use in single-case designs (within-case because it is based on the data for a single individual, rather than across individuals). Let $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$ denote the mean levels of phases A and B, respectively; let $\sigma_A$ and $\sigma_B$ denote the standard deviations of the outcomes within phases A and B, respectively. The standardized mean difference parameter $\delta$ is defined as the difference in means between phase B and phase A, scaled by the standard deviation of the outcome within phase A:
$$ \delta = \frac{\mu_B - \mu_A}{\sigma_A}. $$
Note that $\sigma_A$ represents within-individual variability only. In contrast, the SMD applied to a between-groups design involves scaling by a measure of between- and within-individual variability. Thus, the scale of the within-case SMD is not comparable to the scale of the SMD from a between-groups design.
The SMD $\delta$ can be estimated under the assumption that the observations are mutually independent and have constant variance within each phase. Denote the sample means from phase A and phase B as $\bar{y}_A$ and $\bar{y}_B$, the sample standard deviations from phase A and phase B as $s_A$ and $s_B$, and the number of observations in phase A and phase B as $m$ and $n$, respectively.
There are two ways that the SMD, depending on whether it is reasonable to assume that the standard deviation of the outcome is constant across phases (i.e., $\sigma_A = \sigma_B$).
Baseline SD only. Gingerich (1984) and Busk and Serlin (1992) originally suggested scaling by the SD from phase A only, due to the possibility of non-constant variance across phases. Without assuming constant SDs, an estimate of the standardized mean difference is
$$ d_A = \left(1 - \frac{3}{4m - 5}\right) \frac{\bar{y}_B - \bar{y}_A}{s_A}. $$
The term in parentheses is a small-sample bias correction term (cf. Hedges, 1981; Pustejovsky, 2018). The standard error of this estimate is calculated as
$$ SE_{d_A} = \left(1 - \frac{3}{4m - 5}\right)\sqrt{\frac{1}{m} + \frac{s_B^2}{n s_A^2} + \frac{d_A^2}{2(m - 1)}}. $$
Pooled SD. If it is reasonable to assume that the SDs are constant across phases, then one can use the pooled sample SD to calculate the SMD, defined as
$$ s_p = \sqrt{\frac{(m - 1)s_A^2 + (n - 1) s_B^2}{m + n - 2}}. $$
The SMD can then be estimated as
$$ d_p = \left(1 - \frac{3}{4(m + n) - 9}\right) \frac{\bar{y}_B - \bar{y}_A}{s_p}, $$
with standard error
$$ SE_{d_A} = \left(1 - \frac{3}{4(m + n) - 9}\right)\sqrt{\frac{1}{m} + \frac{1}{n} + \frac{d_p^2}{2(m + n - 2)}}. $$
Confidence interval. Whether the estimator is based on the baseline or pooled standard deviation, an approximate confidence interval for $\delta$ is given by
$$ [d - z_{\alpha / 2} \times SE_d,\quad d + z_{\alpha / 2} \times SE_d], $$
where $z_{\alpha / 2}$ is the $1 - \alpha / 2$ critical value from a standard normal distribution.
Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Directions for Psychology and Education (pp. 187–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gingerich, W. J. (1984). Meta-analysis of applied time-series data. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(1), 71–79. doi: 10.1177/002188638402000113
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. doi: 10.3102/10769986006002107
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2018). Procedural sensitivities of effect sizes for single-case designs with behavioral outcome. Psychological Methods, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000179
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.