Beyond inference by eye: Statistical and graphing practices in <i>JEAB</i>, 1992‐2017
JEAB quietly added more statistics while keeping its classic graphs—mirror the mix when you write your next paper.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kyonka and her team read every article in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior from 1992 to 2017. They counted how many papers added statistics like p-values, confidence intervals, or error bars to the usual single-subject graphs.
They also checked whether the graphs themselves changed: Did the line graphs start looking different? Did authors drop the classic phase labels? They wanted to see if new APA style rules pushed authors toward more statistics.
What they found
Statistics crept in slowly. By 2017, about one in three JEAB articles showed p-values or confidence intervals, up from almost zero in 1992. Error bars on graphs doubled, but still appeared in fewer than half the papers.
The classic single-subject line graph stayed king. Phase labels, data paths, and visual analysis looked the same in 2017 as they did twenty-five years earlier. The 2010 APA style update did not speed up the change.
How this fits with other research
Malone (1999) predicted this shift. That essay told behavior analysts to treat statistics as a friend, not a foe. Kyonka et al. (2019) show the field listened, but only halfway—numbers now sit beside the graphs instead of replacing them.
Davis et al. (1994) looked at JEAB a decade earlier and found heavy self-citation and little outreach. The new data say the journal still keeps its old look while quietly adding new tools. Together the two papers trace a slow, steady evolution rather than a revolution.
Safer-Lichtenstein et al. (2019) and McKenna et al. (2019) scanned wider autism and school literature from the same years. Their reviews found weak reporting standards in applied areas. JEAB’s modest move toward statistics shows basic researchers inching ahead of their applied cousins in transparency.
Why it matters
If you submit to JEAB or train new researchers, expect reviewers to ask for p-values or confidence intervals even when your visual analysis is crystal clear. Add them to your manuscript now—don’t wait for a mandate. Keep the single-subject graph; just let the numbers ride shotgun.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last manuscript draft and add a large share confidence intervals to the summary graph.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Debates about the utility of p values and correct ways to analyze data have inspired new guidelines on statistical inference by the American Psychological Association (APA) and changes in the way results are reported in other scientific journals, but their impact on the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) has not previously been evaluated. A content analysis of empirical articles published in JEAB between 1992 and 2017 investigated whether statistical and graphing practices changed during that time period. The likelihood that a JEAB article reported a null hypothesis significance test, included a confidence interval, or depicted at least one figure with error bars has increased over time. Features of graphs in JEAB, including the proportion depicting single-subject data, have not changed systematically during the same period. Statistics and graphing trends in JEAB largely paralleled those in mainstream psychology journals, but there was no evidence that changes to APA style had any direct impact on JEAB. In the future, the onus will continue to be on authors, reviewers and editors to ensure that statistical and graphing practices in JEAB continue to evolve without interfering with characteristics that set the journal apart from other scientific journals.
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2019 · doi:10.1002/jeab.509