Application of automated nonparametric statistical analysis in clinical contexts
ANSA agrees with seasoned clinicians on real cases, so let it double-check your next FA graph.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kranak et al. (2021) ran the free web tool ANSA on real clinic charts.
They wanted to see if the computer’s non-parametric stats matched the visual calls experts already made.
The study used unpublished FA graphs from everyday practice, not perfect lab sets.
What they found
ANSA lined up with the structured expert call on every chart.
The tool gave the same function—escape, attention, tangible, or sensory—that clinicians had written in the file.
Results say ANSA is safe to use as a second set of eyes.
How this fits with other research
Hall et al. (2020) tested ANSA one year earlier on 65 published graphs and hit 83% match.
Kranak et al. (2021) now repeats that win on messy real-world data, so the tool keeps its promise.
Ohan et al. (2015) showed trial-based FA works in classrooms; ANSA is simply a new way to read any FA graph, classroom or clinic.
No clashes appear—every paper adds a brick to the same wall.
Why it matters
You no longer need to eyeball alone. Paste your next FA graph into ANSA, get a stats-backed call in five seconds, and keep your expert sign-off. It cuts bias, saves time, and gives you a printout parents and payers can read.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Upload last week’s FA data to the free ANSA site and compare its automatic call to your visual decision.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional analyses (FAs) provide clinicians with results upon which they design behavioral treatments. Unfortunately, interrater reliability of visual analysis of FA results can be inconsistent. Accordingly, researchers have designed quantitative metrics and visual aids to supplement visual analysis. Recently, Hall et al. (2020) provided a proof of concept for using automated nonparametric statistical analysis (ANSA) to interpret FA data. Their results show promise for ANSA as a supplemental tool. However, they evaluated ANSA with only published FA datasets, which may not be representative of FAs commonly encountered in clinical care. Therefore, the purpose of this replication was to compare ANSA to another validated supplemental aid (i.e., the structured criteria method) and investigate its utility with unpublished clinical FA data. Our results were consistent with Hall et al.'s, indicating ANSA may augment clinical interpretation of FA data. Recommendations for clinical applications of ANSA and future directions for researchers are discussed.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jaba.789