Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare 12 commonly‐used nonoverlap methods with each other and with the results of visual analysis. Data were obtained from 25 studies focused on embedded instruction and schema‐based instruction and included a total of 101 graphs. Treatment effect estimates using 12 nonoverlap methods were calculated for each graph by hand or using an online calculator. Five experts conducted visual analysis of each graph. Results showed that strong agreements existed between visual analysis and PND, TauNOVLAP and Tau‐U when raw data were analysed, and PND, PNCD and PEM‐T when categorised data were analysed. Of the 12 methods investigated, PND had the highest agreement rate with visual analysis, followed by PEM‐T, PAND, PNCD, IRD, NAP and TauNOVLAP. Overall, visual analysis appeared to be more conservative, as most nonoverlap methods overestimated the treatment effect. Additional research is needed to replicate and potentially validate the findings of this study.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
