Visual inspection is the primary method of interpreting functional analysis (FA) outcomes, even though it has occasionally been criticized for producing low levels of interobserver agreement. Researchers have addressed this issue by creating structured visual-inspection criteria to guide visual inspection of FA outcomes (e.g., Hagopian et al., 1997, https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313; Roane et al., 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13). The purpose of the current study was to systematically replicate and extend Study 1 of Roane et al. (2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13). We did this by evaluating the reliability and accuracy of 15 novice participants’ visual inspection of 84 FA graphs with and without the modified visual-inspection criteria developed by Roane et al. Accuracy was markedly higher when participants used the modified visual-inspection criteria relative to when they used traditional visual-inspection strategies, while we observed more modest increases in reliability coefficients. Results are discussed in the context of practical and clinical implications of the modified visual-inspection criteria and suggestions for future research.

中文翻译：

---

使用和不使用结构化视觉检查标准进一步评估观察者间的可靠性和准确性

目视检查是解释功能分析 (FA) 结果的主要方法，尽管它偶尔会因产生低水平的观察者间一致性而受到批评。研究人员通过创建结构化的视觉检查标准来指导 FA 结果的视觉检查来解决这个问题（例如，Hagopian 等，1997，https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313；Roane 等， 2013，https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13）。当前研究的目的是系统地复制和扩展 Roane 等人的研究 1。（2013 年，https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13）。我们通过评估 15 名新手参与者在使用和不使用 Roane 等人开发的修改后的视觉检查标准的情况下对 84 个 FA 图形进行视觉检查的可靠性和准确性来做到这一点。与使用传统视觉检查策略时相比，参与者使用修改后的视觉检查标准时准确度明显更高，而我们观察到可靠性系数的增加更为温和。结果在修改后的视觉检查标准的实际和临床意义以及对未来研究的建议的背景下进行了讨论。