The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURED CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS DATA
Open accessAbstract
Using functional analysis results to prescribe treatments is the preferred method for developing behavioral interventions. Little is known, however, about the reliability and validity of visual inspection for the interpretation of functional analysis data. The purpose of this investigation was to develop a set of structured criteria for visual inspection of multielement functional analyses that, when applied correctly, would increase interrater agreement and agreement with interpretations reached by expert consensus. In Study 1, 3 predoctoral interns interpreted functional analysis graphs, and interrater agreement was low (M = .46). In Study 2, 64 functional analysis graphs were interpreted by a panel of experts, and then a set of structured criteria were developed that yielded interpretive results similar to those of the panel (exact agreement = .94). In Study 3, the 3 predoctoral interns from Study 1 were trained to use the structured criteria, and the mean interrater agreement coefficient increased to .81. The results suggest that (a) the interpretation of functional analysis data may be less reliable than is generally assumed, (b) decision‐making rules used by experts in the interpretation of functional analysis data can be operationalized, and (c) individuals can be trained to apply these rules accurately to increase interrater agreement. Potential uses of the criteria are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward a functional analysis of self-injury
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 · Cited by 2,644
Self-citation
Cited by
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR: A REVIEW
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147 · Cited by 1,317
Self-citationTHIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1002/jaba.30 · Cited by 640
Self-citationFisher, W. W., Kelley, M. E., & Lomas, J. E. (2003) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-387 · Cited by 351
Self-citationSKILL ACQUISITION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., Hanley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Worsdell, A. S. (2000) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181 · Cited by 284
Self-citationInterpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau- U for single-case experimental designs
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687 · Cited by 210
Metadata
- Authors
- Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Owen‐DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 313-326
- ISSN
- 0021-8855 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3703
- OpenAlex
- W2143778863
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURED CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS DATA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313
- The paper
- Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Owen‐DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D. P. (1997). TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURED CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS DATA. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.