Reliability and validity of using structured visual‐inspection criteria to interpret latency‐based functional analysis outcomes

The team built a short checklist for reading latency-based functional analysis graphs.

They asked 43 BCBAs to use the list on real FA data. Then they checked if everyone picked the same function.

Raters scored a large share agreement and matched the original authors a large share of the time.

The checklist works. Two people looking at the same graph now say the same thing a large share of the time.

That is a big jump from the old days when experts often disagreed.

Al-Jawahiri et al. (2019) pooled 28 FCT studies that used latency FAs. The new checklist could re-score every one of those old graphs in minutes.

Wolfe et al. (2023) also built a visual tool, but for judging replication instead of function. Both papers show that clear pictures beat gut feelings.

McIntyre et al. (2002) taught parents to run FBAs. Now those same parents could use the short checklist to read the graphs they collect.

You no longer need ten years of experience to read a latency FA. Print the one-page checklist, hand it to a new RBT, and you will both call the same function. Faster teams mean quicker treatment and fewer sessions spent arguing over the data.