{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03766707168894289, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5396825396825395, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Meta-analysis for Single-Subject Research

Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Casto (this issue) advocate the use of the percentage of nonoverlapping data points (PND) to summarize and synthesize single-subject research. We take issue with the PND method, which reduces functional analyses to a one-number summary, for the following reasons: (a) the most relevant and credible evidence from single-subject designs lies in the patterns of change across time; (b) summaries based on PND may miss vital idiosyncracies in behavior within and across studies; (c) as practiced previously, syntheses of literature based on PND may misrepresent procedural facts and outcomes; and (d) as practiced previously, syntheses based on PND attempt, inappropriately, to draw conclusions about the relative merits of broad categories of intervention.