Comparing computer‐based training and lecture formats to teach visual analysis of baseline‐treatment graphs
A short, clear lesson—live, recorded, or on paper—quickly teaches graph reading and the skill lasts weeks.
01Research in Context
What this study did
O'Grady et al. (2021) split 60 college students into four groups. One group got no training. The other three got the same short lesson on reading AB graphs, but in different ways: computer program, live lecture, or printed slides.
After the lesson, all students judged new graphs. The team checked accuracy right away, two days later, and two weeks later.
What they found
Any of the three lessons beat no lesson. Students who trained scored about a large share correct. The untrained group stayed near a large share.
The skill stuck. Two weeks later, the trained students still read new graphs well. Format did not matter; computer, lecture, and printed slides worked the same.
How this fits with other research
Vecchia et al. (2025) extends this idea. They used a computer program with general-case design and taught Excel graphing instead of AB graphs. Most students generalized to new Excel tasks after minimal instruction.
Higbee et al. (2016) used the same interactive computer style to teach discrete-trial instruction to teachers in Brazil. Both studies show that brief, well-built computer lessons can teach very different skills.
Vladescu et al. (2022) compared computer training to video modeling for teaching BST. Like O'Grady, they found both formats worked, so picking the cheaper or faster one makes sense.
Why it matters
You can stop worrying about finding the perfect format. A tight script on a slide deck teaches as well as a fancy program. Record your lecture, save it as a video, or just email the slides; new staff or students will still learn to read graphs. Build one good module, use it many times, and spend your energy on other training needs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Turn your next graph-training talk into a three-minute slide deck and email it to new staff before session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractAccurate analysis of data is vital to the validation of interventions. As such, there has been a recent increase in studies evaluating visual analysis training procedures. However, past investigations have not evaluated direct and indirect visual analysis training methods with matched instructional content that was systematically designed. Furthermore, training has rarely included assessment of generalization and maintenance of visual analysis skills. The purpose of the current dissertation study was to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of (a) computer‐based training, (b) lecture formats with and (c) without the opportunity to pause, and (d) a no‐training group to teach visual analysis of AB graphs to university students. To make these formats directly comparable, the instructional content was equated by ensuring information and examples were identical across the three training procedures. Eighty‐three students were randomly assigned to one of the four groups. Results showed that all three training formats produced increases in accurate responding compared to the no‐training group. Visual analysis skills generalized to novel graphs and maintained approximately 2 weeks following all trainings. These results suggest that structured approaches that are carefully designed to train visual analysis are effective and lead to gains that generalize and maintain in the absence of training.
Behavioral Interventions, 2021 · doi:10.1002/bin.1752