Yes!!! I've been trying to teach Juniors that if the function itself has 4 levels of abstraction, even if the names are readableFunctionThatDoesXwithYSideEffect ..... it is harder to understand, Ctrl+clicking downards into each little mini-rabbit -hole. Just keep the function as a 80-liner, not a 20-liner with 4 levels of indirection w/ functions that are only used once (inside parent function) ugh.
http://number-none.com/blow/blog/programming/2014/09/26/carm...
Referencing carmwack always has to be in the context of high performance code.
Even carmack himself has started like functional code. Which normally leads you down small pure functions.
For a procedural code base, avoid subprocedures that are only called once.
For a pure functional codebase, e.g. Haskell, locally-scoped single-use functions can be beneficial.
It might even make it harder to test: if you break a function wrong, then you might end up with a group of functions that only work together anyway.
For example: when you break a big function into 3 smaller ones. If the first acquires a resource (transaction, file) and the third releases it, then it might be simpler to test the whole group rather than each one separately.