An evaluation of the agreement between the conservative dual‐criterion method and expert visual analysis

Wolfe et al. (2018) asked: does the conservative dual-criterion (CDC) rule match what experts see? They fed 600 single-case graphs to both the CDC formula and 30 board-certified visual analysts.

Graphs came from published studies with AB, multiple-baseline, and reversal designs. The team counted how often the CDC agreed with the experts' yes-or-no decision on intervention effects.

CDC agreed with experts about 90 % of the time for multiple-baseline and reversal graphs. Agreement dropped to 75 % for simple AB graphs.

The rule rarely said 'effect' when experts said 'none.' That means CDC is conservative; it errs on the safe side.

Suhrheinrich et al. (2020) also shortened an assessment tool. Their 3-point fidelity checklist reached 99 % agreement with long-form coding, just like CDC reached 90 % with expert eyes. Both papers show that a stripped-down rule can stand in for heavy expert labor.

Paff et al. (2019) built the EBP-COM classroom rubric. Like CDC, it turns a subjective call—'Is the teacher using EBP?'—into an objective score. Together the studies give BCBAs two new yardsticks: one for graphs, one for classrooms.

Jessel et al. (2020) seems to push the other way; they warn that cutting an IISCA to 3–5 min hides experimental control. Their message: shorter is not always better. The difference is target. CDC shortens judgment; Jessel shortens data collection. When data are already collected, a quick rule is fine. When you still need the data, keep the full session.

You can add CDC to your toolbox today. Run the rule on any multiple-baseline or reversal graph in Excel. If CDC says 'effect,' you have an objective backup for your visual call. For AB graphs, stay cautious—double-check with a colleague. Either way, you spend less time staring and more time acting.