Immediacy Versus Overall Level Change in Single Case

Immediacy and overall level change describe different parts of a single-case graph. Immediacy compares a small, predefined window immediately before and after a phase boundary. Overall level summarizes the broader phases. A delayed effect can produce little boundary change and a large later level difference. A brief boundary jump can fade and leave little overall change. Report both windows and their denominators.

Define the boundary window

Choose the number of observations or time span before outcomes and state how missing or unequal spacing is handled.

Calculate the local comparison

Show the raw points and a transparent summary for the last baseline and first intervention windows.

Summarize full phases separately

Report phase level and trend with every denominator so later observations do not masquerade as immediate change.

Explain disagreements between features

Delayed acquisition, temporary novelty, carryover, gradual dosage, or unstable baselines can produce different local and overall patterns.

Replicate the timing pattern

Compare boundary and phase-level findings across planned transitions rather than relying on one phase pair.

Build Lina's boundary-and-phase-level worksheet

For the immediacy versus overall level change single-case question, create a versioned boundary-and-phase-level worksheet. Preserve the target definition, unit, opportunity or observation time, raw series, graph, phase boundaries, design logic, predicted changes, planned demonstrations, actual implementation, measurement quality, client input, access and safety evidence, context, reviewer judgments, and claim status. The record should let another qualified reviewer reconstruct Lina's evidence without relying on a summary score.

Work through Lina's replication example

Lina's last three baseline values are 4, 5, and 4, with a boundary-window median of 4. Her first three intervention values are 5, 4, and 5, with a median of 5 and little immediate separation. The next three are 9, 10, and 9. Across all six supplied intervention values, the median is 7. The example does not provide any earlier baseline values, so a full-baseline median and a full-phase level difference cannot be independently verified unless 4, 5, and 4 are the entire baseline phase. Report the supported local comparison and supply the complete baseline before claiming the overall phase contrast. Display every value, phase, denominator, and time sequence. This fictional community navigation study example illustrates one evidence pattern and does not establish a universal phase length, effect threshold, functional relation, treatment recommendation, or review outcome.

Audit Lina's design evidence

Lina's worksheet predefines three-point boundary windows, preserves all phase values, and reports baseline, immediate-intervention, and full-intervention summaries separately. It flags the delayed high values and avoids using the full phase mean as an immediacy statistic. The audit also checks graph axes, session spacing, invalid and missing states, implementation fidelity, condition discriminability, carryover, definition changes, concurrent events, software settings, and correction history. A missing field does not become a negative value or disappear from the denominator.

Address Lina's main inference risk

Changing the window after seeing the graph can manufacture or erase immediacy. Lina's team locks the rule, shows sensitivity to one reasonable alternative window, and keeps visual review primary. Reviewers describe the raw pattern first, then the narrower conclusion it supports. A clinical improvement can be real and valuable even when the design cannot attribute it confidently, and a strong experimental contrast can still lack personal importance.

Decide the next evidence step for Lina

The report considers plausible latency, implementation, trend, variability, overlap, and replication. It explains whether the delayed pattern fits the intervention and whether the change matters to Lina in original units. The responsible clinician and methodologist choose any added observation, replication, design change, or claim revision. The choice protects needed care, uses prospectively stated rules where possible, and preserves the original graph and decision history.

Protect Lina's access and participation

Keep Lina's augmentative and alternative communication, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available throughout the community navigation study. Use accessible consent and assent processes when applicable and respond to withdrawal, dissent, or distress. A replication plan never supplies authority to withhold a necessary support or delay urgent action.

Apply current sources to Lina's review

Lina's source set supports reviewing immediacy and level as separate features within a complete visual-analysis protocol. The BACB ethics hub and CASP public summary provide professional context, while the BCBA Test Content Outline identifies examination content on measurement and single-case design. The WWC Version 5.0 handbook supplies a current research-review framework. A single-case design review, systematic visual-analysis protocols, current analytic reflections, nonconcurrent multiple-baseline methods research, and a visual-analysis software tutorial describe methods and limits. ASHA supports continuous AAC access.

Rehearse Lina's review process

Before live use, run the boundary-and-phase-level worksheet on fictional graphs with a strong effect, weak effect, delayed effect, opposite trend, carryover, missing agreement, one contradictory tier, and no replication. Confirm that reviewers preserve raw values, count planned opportunities separately from observed demonstrations, identify holds, and keep client relevance distinct from causal inference. Store test cases, expected decisions, software version, and correction log.

Close Lina's claim review

Review the boundary-and-phase-level worksheet with Lina, the responsible clinician, and a methodologist familiar with the exact design. Preserve raw data, graph, design protocol, basic effects, demonstrations, fidelity, measurement checks, contextual events, client input, reviewer disagreements, source standard, final wording, and limits. Keep the page draft and noindex until all manifest-named reviews are complete.

How to Distinguish Immediacy From Overall Level Change