MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385699193 · doi:10.1080/00220973.2023.2243593

Optimal Practices for Mediation Analysis in AB Single Case Experimental Designs

2023· article· en· W4385699193 on OpenAlex
Milica Miočević, Fayette Klaassen, Mariola Moeyaert, Gemma Geuke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Experimental Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute of Education Sciences
KeywordsMediationComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mediation analysis in Single Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs) evaluates intervention mechanisms for individuals. Despite recent methodological developments, no clear guidelines exist for maximizing power to detect the indirect effect in SCEDs. This study compares frequentist and Bayesian methods, determining (1) minimum required sample size to detect indirect effects in AB designs, (2) relative power for proximal vs. distal mediators, and (3) optimal observation allocation between baseline and treatment phases. Simulation study results suggest highest power for proximal mediators with at least 60 observations evenly allocated to A and B phases. Findings from this study have important implications for the design and statistical analysis in numerous fields that routinely employ SCEDs, ranging from education to psychology and nursing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.446
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.052 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it