A Critical Review of Line Graphs in Behavior Analytic Journals

Abstract

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

A Decade Review of Single‐Case Graph Construction in the Field of Learning Disabilities

“…(2020) and Kubina et al. (2017). To determine whether standardized x : y ratios were distributed normally, we computed coefficients of skewness (i.e., measure of symmetry along the center point) and kurtosis (i.e., measure of the tails of the distribution).…”

“…A decade was chosen (i.e., 2010–2019) because, although a different sample was used, Kubina et al. (2017) stopped their search in 2011, and Ledford et al. (2019) only reviewed a 5‐year time frame (i.e., dates not specified).…”

Single‐case experimental designs: Characteristics, changes, and challenges

“…A second type of change has been the development of a plethora of concrete recommendations, guidelines, and rules to aid decision making as these designs are used in applied settings. These guidelines and recommendations for quite specific facets of the single‐case designs related to assessment (e.g., Artman et al, 2012; Fiske & Delmolino, 2012), the uses of various designs (Coon & Rapp, 2018), graphing the data (Kubina et al, 2017; Ledford et al, 2019), evaluation of treatment integrity (e.g., Collier‐Meek et al, 2017), criteria for visual inspection (e.g., Lane & Gast, 2014), and what statistical analyses to use or be wary of (e.g., Manolov & Solanas, 2018; Moeyaert et al, 2017; Parker & Brossart, 2003; Shadish, 2014b), among others. At this point, there is no single set of guidelines or recommendations for any of these facets that is routinely used, widely subscribed to, or embraced as a matter of publication practice or policy.…”

“…For example, in applied single‐case research, basic information often is omitted such as exactly who the participants were (e.g., subject and demographic variables), how they were recruited, who administered the intervention, the extent of their training, whether the integrity or execution of the intervention was assessed, and key details about the data evaluation (e.g., Fryling et al, 2012; Kubina et al, 2017; Vannest et al, 2018; Tate, Perdices, Rosenkoetter, McDonald et al, 2016). Selective reporting has been identified as a problem as well.…”

Application of automated nonparametric statistical analysis in clinical contexts

“…Results of FAs influence and guide necessary treatment decisions that reduce problem behavior and increase adaptive behavior (Iwata & Dozier, 2008). Visual analysis is the primary method by which clinicians and researchers interpret and evaluate FA results (e.g., Betz & Fisher, 2011;Kubina et al, 2017). Unfortunately, interrater reliability of visual analysis is sometimes inconsistent (Lanovaz et al, 2017;Wolfe et al, 2016), especially in cases where raters may not have much experience interpreting FA results (e.g., Danov & Symons, 2008).…”