Structured visual analysis of single‐case experimental design data: Developments and technological advancements

Dowdy and his team read every JABA article from 2010 through 2020. They hunted for any graph judged with a checklist, software, or other structured tool. They also counted how many graphs were rated by eye alone.

The search let them see if new tech tools are reaching everyday practice.

Out of hundreds of graphs, almost none were scored with a formal tool. Most researchers still decide effects by looking and arguing.

Plenty of aids exist, but they stay on the shelf.

Branch (2021) says old-school eyeballing still works fine if you follow Sidman rules. That view may explain why few teams try new tech.

Tincani et al. (2024) push for preregistration to cut bias. Using a checklist after data are plotted would match that same open-science spirit, yet the field is slow to adopt both steps.

Cohen et al. (2018) show another gap: social validity is also rarely reported in single-case papers. Together the three reviews paint a picture—researchers skip extra forms even when they exist.

If you supervise students or review graphs for treatment decisions, pick one free tool and test it for a week. Compare its call with your visual guess. You will add speed, notes, and transparency to every case you review.