ird()
calculates the robust improvement rate difference as proposed by
Parker and colleagues (2011).
Arguments
- data
A single-case data frame. See
scdf()
to learn about this format.- dvar
Character string with the name of the dependent variable. Defaults to the attributes in the scdf file.
- pvar
Character string with the name of the phase variable. Defaults to the attributes in the scdf file.
- decreasing
If you expect data to be lower in the B phase, set
decreasing = TRUE
. Default isdecreasing = FALSE
.- phases
A vector of two characters or numbers indicating the two phases that should be compared. E.g.,
phases = c("A","C")
orphases = c(2,4)
for comparing the second to the fourth phase. Phases could be combined by providing a list with two elements. E.g.,phases = list(A = c(1,3), B = c(2,4))
will compare phases 1 and 3 (as A) against 2 and 4 (as B). Default isphases = c(1,2)
.- x
An object returned by
ird()
- digits
The minimum number of significant digits to be use.
- ...
Further arguments passed to the function.
Details
The adaptation of the improvement rate difference for single-case phase comparisons was developed by Parker and colleagues (2009). A variation called robust improvement rate difference was proposed by Parker and colleagues in 2011. This function calculates the robust improvement rate difference. It follows the formula suggested by Pustejovsky (2019). For a multiple case design, ird is based on the overall improvement rate of all cases which is the average of the irds for each case.
References
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Brown, L. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single-case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135-150.
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
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2019). Procedural sensitivities of effect sizes for single-case designs with directly observed behavioral outcome measures. Psychological Methods, 24(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000179