Using equivalence‐based instruction to teach the visual analysis of graphs

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated low rater agreement when visually inspecting trends in single‐subject design graphs (see Wolfe, Seaman, & Drasgow, 2016). Didactic instruction of visual analysis of practicing behavior analysts has resulted in generally poor and unreliable performances (Danov & Symons, 2008; Diller, Barry, & Gelino, 2016). Therefore, a refined instructional technology to improve the reliability among behavior analysts is warranted. Developing research has focused on the application of equivalence‐based instruction (Brodsky & Fienup, 2018; Rehfeldt, 2011) for a variety of complex human behaviors. In the current study, equivalence‐based instruction was used to train four participants to identify functional relations displayed in five different classes of graphs. Training resulted in the formation of five equivalence classes by all participants consisting of three members (graph, functional relation rule, and functional relation statement). In addition, the skills were maintained for up to 2 weeks and generalized to novel graphs.

Comparing two equivalence‐based instruction protocols and self‐study for teaching logical fallacies to college students

“…This finding replicates Ong et al (2018) in which MTS EBI was superior to a self-instruction procedure. The finding is also consistent with prior studies that showed EBI, in general, is an effective procedure for teaching classes of verbally complex stimuli (e.g., Albright, et al, 2016a;Alter & Borrero, 2015;Blair et al, 2019;Brodsky & Fienup, 2018;Fields et al, 2009b;Fienup & Brodsky, 2017;, 2011O'Neill et al, 2015;Pytte & Fienup, 2012;Varelas & Fields, 2017;Walker & Rehfeldt, 2012). Differences in performance on generalization trials, however, were not significant.…”

“…The establishment of generalized equivalence classes is important because they demonstrate that class‐consistent responding is not restricted to only those stimuli used during training in EBI (Fields & Reeve, 2001). Similar outcomes have also been demonstrated in prior EBI studies using complex verbal stimuli with adults (e.g., Albright et al., 2016a, 2016b; Blair et al., 2019).…”

“…EBI has been used successfully to teach equivalence classes in a variety of content areas to learners with sophisticated verbal repertoires (see review by Brodsky & Fienup, 2018). This includes teaching including mathematical functions (Ninness et al., 2005, 2006, 2009), statistical interactions (Fields et al., 2009b), statistical hypothesis testing (Fienup & Critchfield, 2010, 2011), neuroanatomy concepts (Fienup et al., 2010, 2015, 2016; Greville, Dymond, & Newton, 2016; Pytte & Fienup, 2012; Reyes‐Giordano & Fienup, 2015), prenatal development concepts (Varelas & Fields, 2017), disability categories (Alter & Borrero, 2015; Walker, Rehfeldt, & Ninness, 2010), group research designs (Sella, Ribeiro, & White, 2014), single‐subject designs (Albright, Reeve, Reeve, & Kisamore, 2016a; Blair et al., 2019; Lovett, Rehfeldt, Garcia, & Dunning, 2011; Walker & Rehfeldt, 2012), functions of behavior (Albright, Schnell, Reeve, & Sidener, 2016b), and verbal operants (O’Neill, Rehfeldt, Ninness, Munoz, & Mellor, 2015).…”

Three Alternatives for Graphing Behavioral Data: A Comparison of Usability and Acceptability

“…To address the aforementioned limitations with using equal-interval graphs, some researchers have developed systematic protocols to aid evaluation of graphs (e.g., Wolfe et al, 2019), others have developed additional statistics or graphic aides (e.g., trend lines) to assist visual interpretation of data (e.g., Fisher et al, 2003;Lane & Gast, 2014;Lane & Sándor, 2009;Manolov & Vannest, 2019), and some suggest more intensive training (e.g., Blair et al, 2019;Nelson et al, 2017;O'Grady et al, 2018;Young & Daly, 2016). Additionally, many researchers have suggested that data should be graphed using basic principles of standardization in the construction of visual displays (e.g., Dart & Radley, 2017;Datchuk & Kubina, 2011;Kubina et al, 2017;Lindsley, 1992;Pennypacker et al, 2003;Radley et al, 2018).…”

A comparison of individual and group equivalence‐based instruction delivered via Canvas

“…Researchers have used EBI to teach definitions and applications of terms to students in higher education (see Brodsky & Fienup, 2018, for a review), including several successful applications of EBI to teach students behavior‐analytic content. Researchers have taught students behavior‐analytic terminology (Augland et al, 2020; Blair et al, 2021; Ostrosky et al, 2022), single‐subject design (Lovett et al, 2011; Walker & Rehfeldt, 2012), verbal operants (O'Neill et al, 2015), visual analysis (Blair et al, 2019), discrete‐trial teaching (Cariveau et al, 2020), and how to interpret operant functions (Albright et al, 2016). These studies collectively demonstrate that EBI consistently produces correct responding to untrained relations between stimuli.…”