The effects of celeration lines on visual data analysis.
Celeration lines on graphs don’t help BCBAs interpret data better—focus on training visual-analysis skills instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked 36 BCBAs to look at 60 single-case graphs.
Half the graphs had celeration lines drawn on them.
Half did not.
Everyone judged whether each graph showed an improving trend.
The study timed the answers and scored them right or wrong.
What they found
Accuracy stayed low no matter what.
With celeration lines the hit rate was a large share.
Without them it was a large share.
That gap is too small to matter.
Only the analyst’s own skill predicted better scores.
How this fits with other research
Moss et al. (2009) looked at 55 staff-training studies.
They found the same thing: passive aids alone don’t work.
What does work is in-service plus on-the-job feedback.
Yaw et al. (2014) proved it again.
They gave residential staff brief verbal feedback after in-service.
Data accuracy doubled.
Together these papers show a pattern: tools don’t teach; feedback does.
Why it matters
Stop drawing celeration lines on your client graphs.
They waste time and ink.
Instead, spend five minutes giving your RBT specific feedback after each data review.
Say exactly what the trend looks like and praise correct judgments.
This tiny habit gives bigger accuracy gains than any graph add-on.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one RBT, review five graphs together, give immediate verbal feedback on trend calls.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previous visual analysis research reported that the overall agreement between visual analysis and statistical analysis was poor. In response, some researchers suggested the use of celeration lines to improve the accuracy and reliability of visual analysis. However, subsequent research reported little or no improvement in accuracy with such lines. The present study presented 5 board-certified behavior analysts with a series of behavioral graphs. The participants were asked to answer questions similar to those posed in previous studies but were also asked to talk aloud as they viewed each graph. Results indicate that the participants made accurate decisions for only 72% of the graphs and that celeration lines did not improve overall accuracy. The verbal protocol analysis suggests that participants were as likely to attend to trend when celeration lines were absent as they were when they were present, with the most differences attributable to varying participant competencies and not graph (i.e., celeration line) characteristics.
Behavior modification, 2006 · doi:10.1177/0145445503262406