The present study builds on a previous proposal for assigning probabilities to the outcomes computed using different primary indicators in single-case studies. These probabilities are obtained comparing the outcome to previously tabulated reference values and reflect the likelihood of the results in case there was no intervention effect. The current study explores how well different metrics are translated into p values in the context of simulation data. Furthermore, two published multiple baseline data sets are used to illustrate how well the probabilities could reflect the intervention effectiveness as assessed by the original authors. Finally, the importance of which primary indicator is used in each data set to be integrated is explored; two ways of combining probabilities are used: a weighted average and a binomial test. The results indicate that the translation into p values works well for the two nonoverlap procedures, with the results for the regression-based procedure diverging due to some undesirable features of its performance. These p values, both when taken individually and when combined, were well-aligned with the effectiveness for the real-life data. The results suggest that assigning probabilities can be useful for translating the primary measure into the same metric, using these probabilities as additional evidence on the importance of behavioral change, complementing visual analysis and professional's judgments.