Using modified visual-inspection criteria to interpret functional analysis outcomes.
The Hagopian visual-inspection checklist gives reliable FA results, but many BCBAs still eyeball graphs and miss the mark.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked experts and novices to look at 141 FA graphs. They used the Hagopian modified visual-inspection rules to decide if a graph showed a clear function.
Everyone followed the same checklist: look for level, trend, and immediacy of change. The study checked how often pairs of raters agreed.
What they found
Agreement was high for both experts and novices. The modified rules worked no matter how long each FA session lasted.
In short, the checklist made FA interpretation reliable across viewers.
How this fits with other research
Dowdy et al. (2024) seems to disagree. They found most BCBAs already ignore the modified rules and can be swayed by simple graph tricks like stretching the x-axis. The clash is real: S et al. say the rules create agreement, Dowdy et al. say few people use them correctly.
Preston et al. (2024) extends the idea. They baked the same Hagopian rules into an Excel tool called FADSS. The tool gave 95% agreement with expert post-hoc review and cut scoring time in half.
Kahng et al. (2010) set the stage. They showed experts already agree when they eyeball graphs. The 2013 paper keeps that agreement while giving novices a clear script to follow.
Why it matters
If you interpret FA graphs by gut alone, your results may drift. Use the Hagopian rules or the free FADSS tool to stay consistent. Train staff with the checklist and spot-check their ratings. Reliable FA decisions lead to faster, better treatment.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last five FA graphs and score them with the Hagopian rules; compare your conclusion with your original call.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The development of functional analysis (FA) methodologies allows the identification of the reinforcers that maintain problem behavior and improved intervention efficacy in the form of function-based treatments. Despite the profound impact of FA on clinical practice and research, questions still remain about the methods by which clinicians and researchers interpret FA graphs. In the current study, 141 FA data sets were evaluated using the structured visual-inspection criteria developed by Hagopian et al. (1997). However, the criteria were modified for FAs of varying lengths. Interobserver agreement assessments revealed high agreement coefficients across expert judges, postdoctoral reviewers, master's-level reviewers, and postbaccalaureate reviewers. Once the validity of the modified visual-inspection procedures was established, the utility of those procedures was examined by using them to categorize the maintaining reinforcement contingency related to problem behavior for all 141 data sets and for the 101 participants who contributed to the 141 data sets.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2013 · doi:10.1002/jaba.13