Abstract

Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from single-case designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern. Although structured aids to visual analysis such as the dual-criteria (DC) method may increase interrater agreement, the accuracy of the analyses may still benefit from improvements. Thus, the purpose of our study was to (a) examine correspondence between visual analysis and models derived from different machine learning algorithms, and (b) compare the accuracy, Type I error rate and power of each of our models with those produced by the DC method. We trained our models on a previously published dataset and then conducted analyses on both nonsimulated and simulated graphs. All our models derived from machine learning algorithms matched the interpretation of the visual analysts more frequently than the DC method. Furthermore, the machine learning algorithms outperformed the DC method on accuracy, Type I error rate, and power. Our results support the somewhat unorthodox proposition that behavior analysts may use machine learning algorithms to supplement their visual analysis of single-case data, but more research is needed to examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of such an approach.

Highlights

  • Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from singlecase designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern

  • The purpose of our study was to (1) examine correspondence between visual analysis and models derived from different machine-learning algorithms, and (2) compare the accuracy, Type I error rate and power of each of our models with those produced by the DC method

  • Overall correspondence with visual analysis for the DC method was approximately 87% whereas all models derived from machine learning produced overall correspondence above 90%

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Visual analysis is the most commonly used method for interpreting data from singlecase designs, but levels of interrater agreement remain a concern. Visual analysis is the most commonly recommended method for analyzing single-case data (Dart & Radley, 2017; Lane & Gast, 2014) This approach entails making a series of decisions regarding changes in level, trend, variability, overlap, and immediacy between contrasting phases in a graph (Kratochwill et al, 2010). The split-middle method has the advantages of not requiring advanced calculations and is easy to implement, but it is limited insofar as it only supplements decisions regarding trend and does not consider the other behavioral dimensions needed in visual analysis (Manolov & Vannest, 2019) In response to these limitations, Fisher et al (2003) developed the DC and CDC methods. The CDC method was created to compensate for the high rate of Type I errors made by the DC method when autocorrelation was present in the datasets

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call