To report single-case metrics without universal cutoffs, state the exact metric and version, improvement direction, phase sizes, raw values or cells, tie and trend rules, result, uncertainty, and design context. Describe what the number measures and omits. Pair it with visual analysis, replications, original-unit magnitude, client priorities, access, burden, and side effects instead of attaching a universal effectiveness label.

Name the metric precisely

Include formula version, correction status, software or calculation method, direction, tie rule, trend handling, and rounding.

Show the evidence behind the number

Report phase sizes, raw values or pair cells, missingness, and possible score increments. Link to the graph and source data.

Explain what the metric captures

State whether it reflects an extreme reference, median reference, pair ordering, signed pair balance, average distance, or another feature.

Explain what it omits

Discuss distance, time order, variability, autocorrelation, context, design replication, maintenance, generalization, client experience, and clinical importance as applicable.

Use evidence-specific language

Describe the observed value and its limits. Avoid universal small, moderate, large, effective, or ineffective labels unless a validated, applicable decision rule has been established for the exact use.

Build Bela's single-case metric reporting template

Start with a locked worklist for Bela. Record the review question, metric name, formula version, phase labels, improvement direction, planned and valid observations, missing or invalid states, tie handling, trend handling, source timestamps, calculation owner, and review date. The cutoff-free effect report result should be reproducible from this worklist without relying on an unlabeled dashboard value. Keep the data in their original unit so reviewers can connect the supplement to the graph and to the actual outcome. For the report single-case metrics without universal cutoffs question, Bela's reviewer also records the release criterion, expected evidence, unresolved limitations, and exact action that the result may inform. This small decision log prevents a calculation from becoming an open-ended label and lets a later reviewer distinguish the observed value from the judgment made with it.

Work the calculation for Bela

Bela reviews two fictional datasets with 100% PND. Dataset one moves from baseline maximum 10 to intervention values 11 and 12. Dataset two moves from baseline maximum 10 to 110 and 120. Both have 2/2 strict nonoverlap, yet their original-unit distances differ greatly and both intervention phases contain only two points. Show every intermediate count or statistic at enough precision to reproduce the displayed result. Keep the raw phase values in chronological order beside any sorted, paired, or transformed table. The fictional arithmetic illustrates the method; it does not create a clinical threshold, minimum phase size, or promised treatment effect.

Audit Bela's denominator and formula

Bela's template requires the phrase 2 of 2 beside 100%, lists each raw phase, and reports the original-unit changes. It leaves effectiveness categories blank because the evidence card does not support a universal label across phase sizes, measures, populations, and designs. The audit also checks duplicate timestamps, silent imputation, phase-boundary drift, direction reversal, premature rounding, spreadsheet ranges, software version, and correction history. Any unresolved source discrepancy stays on hold with an owner and due date instead of being converted into a convenient zero or exclusion.

Watch for the main failure mode in Bela's review

A bare percentage invites readers to infer magnitude, certainty, causation, and clinical value that the metric does not contain. A universal color band can amplify that error. Bela's template requires a plain-language scope sentence after every result. Reviewers should be able to see how one point, tie, extreme, missing observation, or phase-length decision affects the result. A sensitivity example is labeled as hypothetical and never mixed with observed evidence.

Integrate the metric with visual and design analysis for Bela

The qualified reviewer documents whether the graph shows level, trend, variability, immediacy, overlap, and consistent replications; whether the design supports a functional relation; and whether Bela values the outcome. The metric remains one transparent supplement in that record. The WWC Version 5.0 handbook is a research evidence standard, so its design criteria are not a universal clinical protocol. In care, the responsible clinician also considers current assessment evidence, professional scope, the treatment plan, ordinary supports, risk, and the person's choices.

Protect client relevance and access for Bela

During Bela's transparent reporting without universal labels review, keep augmentative and alternative communication, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available. Use accessible communication to ask whether the goal, direction, magnitude, burden, and observed change matter to Bela. A favorable coefficient cannot repair an unwanted target, inaccessible measurement process, unsafe plan, or missing consent and assent process.

Use current evidence within scope for Bela

For Bela's cutoff-free effect report review, the BACB ethics hub and CASP public summary provide professional context, while the BCBA Test Content Outline supplies examination scope for measurement, graphing, interpretation, experimental design, and data-based evaluation. A single-case methods review describes common overlap, Tau, and two-SD calculations. Decision-accuracy research shows why phase size and design structure matter and why overlap percentages do not measure distance. A reproducibility tutorial documents ambiguity among Tau-U implementations and baseline corrections. Nonoverlap and mean-difference methods explain their distinct information targets. ASHA supports continuous access to AAC tools or devices.

Close Bela's supplemental analysis review

Review the single-case metric reporting template with Bela and the responsible qualified clinician. Preserve source data, graph, phase definitions, calculation specification, coverage, ties, uncertainty, limitations, client input, selected action, owner, and next review date. Reopen the analysis when the measure, phase, context, access, health, goal, software, or design changes. The final note should make clear which conclusions are supported, which remain uncertain, and which require different evidence.

Related resources

Sources