Visual displays such as graphs have played an instrumental role in psychology. One discipline relies almost exclusively on graphs in both applied and basic settings, behavior analysis. The most common graphic used in behavior analysis falls under the category of time series. The line graph represents the most frequently used display for visual analysis and subsequent interpretation and communication of experimental findings. Behavior analysis, like the rest of psychology, has opted to use non-standard line graphs. Therefore, the degree to which graphical quality occurs remains unknown. The current article surveys the essential structure and quality features of line graphs in behavioral journals. Four thousand three hundred and thirteen graphs from 11 journals served as the sample. Results of the survey indicate a high degree of deviation from standards of graph construction and proper labeling. A discussion of the problems associated with graphing errors, future directions for graphing in the field of behavior analysis, and the need for standards adopted for line graphs follows.Behavior analysis, a subfield of psychology, owes a great debt to the visual display of data. For example, the cumulative recorder offered a standard visual display of an organism's performance data. The distinctive visual patterns of behavior led to the discoveries such as schedules of reinforcement (Lattal 2004). As behavior analysis moved forward in time, the visual displays shifted from cumulative recorders to line graphs. Data show that cumulative records in the Educ Psychol Rev

Many children with intellectual disability, including children with Down syndrome, have teachers who are unsure what type of reading instruction is likely to increase outcomes for their students. Effectiveness of two commercially available, evidence-based reading interventions was evaluated through 3 multiple baseline across participants, single-subject research design studies involving 15 children with Down syndrome between the ages of 5 and 13 years. School staff implemented the phonological awareness and decoding interventions for an average of 25 sessions across approximately 12 weeks. Results indicate improvements in the reading of taught phonetically regular and high frequency words associated with the decoding intervention, but no generalization to oral reading fluency. No reliable gains were associated with the phonological awareness intervention. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract