ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2018
Predictive validity and efficiency of ongoing visual-inspection criteria for interpreting functional analyses.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Analysis Decision-Making Considerations.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Review
- Influence of Televisibility and Harm Probability on Clinical-Ethical Decision Making.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (GLMM) of Functional Analysis Graphical Construction Elements on Visual Analysis.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- On the validity of interpreting functional analyses of inappropriate mealtime behavior using structured criteria.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2022Article
- Validating a Computerized Program for Supporting Visual Analysis During Functional Analysis: The Problem Behavior Multilevel Interpreter (PB.MI).Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Implementing Automated Nonparametric Statistical Analysis on Functional Analysis Data: A Guide for Practitioners and Researchers.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Further Analysis of Advanced Quantitative Methods and Supplemental Interpretative Aids with Single-Case Experimental Designs.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Procedures and Accuracy of Discontinuous Measurement of Problem Behavior in Common Practice of Applied Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Article
- A Preliminary Evaluation of Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Open-Ended Indirect Assessment.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Article
- A translational evaluation of potential iatrogenic effects of single and combined contingencies during functional analysis.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Efficiency in functional analysis of problem behavior: A quantitative and qualitative review.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Review
- Randomization tests as alternative analysis methods for behavior-analytic data.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2018
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior research has evaluated the reliability and validity of structured criteria for visually inspecting functional-analysis (FA) results on a post-hoc basis, after completion of the FA (i.e., post-hoc visual inspection [PHVI]; e.g., Hagopian et al., 1997). However, most behavior analysts inspect FAs using ongoing visual inspection (OVI) as the FA is implemented, and the validity of applying structured criteria during OVI remains unknown. In this investigation, we evaluated the predictive validity and efficiency of applying structured criteria on an ongoing basis by comparing the interim interpretations produced through OVI with (a) the final interpretations produced by PHVI, (b) the authors' post-hoc interpretations (PHAI) reported in the research studies, and (c) the consensus interpretations of these two post-hoc analyses. Ongoing visual inspection predicted the results of PHVI and the consensus interpretations with a very high degree of accuracy, and PHAI with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. Furthermore, the PHVI and PHAI results involved 32 FA sessions, on average, whereas the OVI required only 19 FA sessions to accurately identify the function(s) of destructive behavior (i.e., a 41% increase in efficiency). We discuss these findings relative to other methods designed to increase the accuracy and efficiency of FAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.