Application of multiple baseline designs in behavior analytic research: Evidence for the influence of new guidelines
Only half of recent MBL graphs follow the simple shading rule, so fix yours today.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Coon et al. (2018) looked at every multiple-baseline graph printed in behavior-analytic journals from 2000 to 2015.
They checked one simple rule: did the authors shade the concurrent phases and label them in order?
The team wanted to see if writers followed the graph-drawing advice that journals had published.
What they found
Only about half of the graphs used shading and sequential labels.
The rest left readers to guess where each phase started and ended.
In short, the field still draws MBL graphs the hard way.
How this fits with other research
Spiegel et al. (2023) ran a similar audit on ABAB graphs and also found weak rule following. Both reviews say the same thing: we need clearer pictures.
Manolov et al. (2021) give a free web app that scores alternation-design consistency. Their tool could fill the gap Coon found—automatic checks instead of eyeballing.
Huang et al. (2023) show uneven use of the seven ABA dimensions in China. Coon’s team saw uneven use of one small graph rule. Together they paint a wide pattern: guidelines exist, but writers skip them.
Why it matters
If your graph hides the phases, reviewers, teachers, and parents must work harder to see the effect. Shade concurrent baselines, add A-B-C labels, and you save everyone time. Next time you paste data into a figure, spend the extra two minutes to follow the rule Coon checked—your readers will thank you.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last MBL graph and add gray shading plus sequential phase labels before you submit it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The multiple baseline (MBL) design is a single‐case experimental design that has both research and applied utility. Although the concurrent and nonconcurrent MBL variants are valid designs, each rules out different threats to internal validity. To help clarify these differences, studies have provided guidelines for graphically depicting and distinguishing between concurrent and nonconcurrent MBLs. This study assessed the extent to which data‐presentation guidelines have been adopted by examining single‐case experimental design studies published in 3 behavior‐analytic journals from 2000 to 2015. Results suggest that data‐depiction guidelines have increased correct identification of concurrent multiple baseline designs but also indicate that these guidelines have not been universally adopted.
Behavioral Interventions, 2018 · doi:10.1002/bin.1510