Does analysis brevity result in loss of control? A consecutive case series of 26 single‐session interview‐informed synthesized contingency analyses

Jessel and team ran 26 single-session IISCAs back-to-back. Each session lasted 10 minutes.

They then trimmed the same data to only the first 3–5 minutes. They asked: does the short slice still show clear experimental control?

The full 10-minute window gave strong control in most cases. When they cut the session to 3–5 minutes, control looked weaker or vanished.

Brief slices often missed the clear up-and-down pattern you need to trust the results.

Weyman et al. (2022) also use a quick FA format—trial-based—but they keep enough trials to see control. Their success shows brevity can work if you keep the data density, not just the clock short.

Suhrheinrich et al. (2020) found that a simplified 3-point fidelity checklist kept the same reliability as long coding. This seems to clash with Jessel: one says shorten, the other says don’t. The difference is what you shorten. Checklists cut paperwork time; cutting FA minutes cuts the very data you judge control by.

Frank-Crawford et al. (2026) compared latency- versus rate-based CSAs and told us to trust the measure that gives the clearest picture. Jessel adds a parallel rule: give the measure enough time to show that picture.

If you run a single-session IISCA, block out the full 10 minutes. Stopping at 5 min may hide the control you need to build a good treatment. When time is tight, add more brief sessions instead of slicing one session thinner.