Much of the special education literature features single-case experimental designs, which traditionally require researchers to determine functional relations among variables through the visual analyses of line graphs. Evidence suggests factors aside from the data influence visual analysis, including line graph construction. Fields including engineering, behavior analysis, and psychology have historically propagated standards related to the visual data displays to mitigate the effect of arbitrary graph construction on the interpretation of results. Although evidence suggests graphs featured in behavior analytic studies do not observe the standards, the extent to which researchers in special education adhere to longstanding graphing guidelines remains uncertain. The following article provides an overview of graphing standards and examines the adherence of line graphs from 532 issues of 28 distinct special education journals to traditional standards of visual display. Results indicated the majority of special education line graphs deviate from established line graph construction standards in important respects. The discussion centers on the need for updating and disseminating guidelines regarding line graph construction.

许多特殊教育文献都采用单案例实验设计，传统上要求研究人员通过线图的视觉分析来确定变量之间的函数关系。有证据表明，除数据之外的其他因素会影响视觉分析，包括折线图的构建。包括工程、行为分析和心理学在内的领域历来传播与视觉数据显示相关的标准，以减轻任意图形构建对结果解释的影响。尽管有证据表明行为分析研究中的图表不符合标准，但特殊教育研究人员遵守长期图表指南的程度仍然不确定。以下文章概述了绘图标准，并检查了来自 28 种不同特殊教育期刊的 532 期的折线图对传统视觉显示标准的遵守情况。结果表明，大多数特殊教育折线图在重要方面偏离了既定的折线图构建标准。讨论的中心是更新和传播有关折线图构建指南的必要性。