A concise review of recent advancements in the graphical training of behavior analysts

Kranak et al. (2022) read every recent paper that tried to teach behavior analysts how to draw single-case graphs.

They pulled out the training steps, the tools used, and the tests given to learners.

The goal was to see which methods look promising and where the gaps still sit.

No single package won. Teams used live demos, video models, computer modules, and step sheets.

Some added feedback, others added quizzes. All boosted graphing skills, but no study compared the packages head-to-head.

The authors say we still do not know the fastest or cheapest way to train staff.

Auten et al. (2024) also wrote a short 2024 review, but they mapped how to let clients pick interventions. Both papers are short, recent reviews, yet one trains staff and the other empowers clients.

Nesselrode et al. (2022) looked at functional analysis formats in schools. Like Kranak, they found many options with work, but no clear winner. The pattern is the same: lots of tools, little guidance on which to choose.

Cerasuolo et al. (2022) reviewed pretreatment predictors of ABA success. They warned that simple rules like “higher baseline equals better outcome” break down. Kranak echoes this: simple rules like “use video training” may also break down without direct tests.

If you supervise RBTs or graduate students, you now know the field has not picked a gold-standard graphing course. Pick one method, track mastery, and share your data. Your small test moves the whole field forward.