Multiple baseline (MB) designs are becoming more prevalent in educational and behavioral research, and as they do, there is growing interest in combining effect size estimates across studies. To further refine the meta-analytic methods of estimating the effect, this study developed and compared eight alternative methods of estimating intervention effects from a set of MB studies. The methods differed in the assumptions made and varied in whether they relied on within- or between-series comparisons, modeled raw data or effect sizes, and did or did not standardize. Small sample functioning was examined through two simulation studies, which showed that when data were consistent with assumptions the bias was consistently less than 5% of the effect size for each method, whereas root mean squared error varied substantially across methods. When assumptions were violated, substantial biases were found. Implications and limitations are discussed.