Masked visual review limits selected information available to baseline reviewers so later outcomes or preferred study results cannot shape the readiness judgment. Define what reviewers see, the decision question, independent response options, disagreement process, safety access, and unmasking rule before review. Masking can reduce some hindsight or expectancy influence. It cannot repair weak measurement, an unsuitable design, missing clinical authority, or unrepresentative data.

Define the masking purpose

Name the influence being reduced, such as later outcome knowledge, site identity, or investigator preference, and state which information remains necessary.

Standardize the reviewer packet

Give every reviewer the same series, scale, direction, opportunity, missingness, context, and decision instructions.

Collect judgments independently

Use predefined response choices plus rationale and confidence. Prevent reviewers from discussing the graph before submitting.

Preserve disagreement

Report each judgment and use a prospectively stated adjudication rule. A majority vote can conceal an important methods concern.

Separate masking from authority

Qualified clinical roles retain care, safety, consent, assent, and access decisions. Masked analysts answer only the defined methods question.

Build Eli's masked baseline-review packet

For the masked visual review baseline decision question, create a versioned masked baseline-review packet. Record the target, measurement unit, eligible opportunities or observation time, scale, desired direction, raw series, missing and invalid states, context, graph version, timing mechanism, decision rule, reviewers, clinical gates, participation response, decision time, actual change, deviations, and follow-up. The record should let another qualified reviewer reconstruct why Eli's phase decision occurred without relying on memory.

Work through Eli's baseline example

Eli's packet shows seven baseline observations, the defined target direction, scale, eligible opportunities, missingness, and context flags. It hides later phase data, site identity, and investigator preference. Three independent reviewers return ready, ready with concern, and collect more data. The protocol routes disagreement to a fourth reviewer and preserves all four judgments. Show the raw series and all denominators before adding summaries. This fictional three-site participation study example illustrates one decision pattern and does not create a universal stability percentage, point count, phase duration, treatment rule, or causal conclusion.

Audit the evidence available for Eli

Eli's packet records the masked fields, visible fields, graph version, reviewer assignment, timestamps, independent ratings, rationales, disagreement rule, fourth review, final methods decision, clinical gate, and unmasking time. Access or safety information needed for a responsible decision is never hidden for masking convenience. The audit also checks data-entry history, definition version, observer training, agreement when needed, graph axes, session spacing, exclusions, phase labels, source timestamps, and access to original records. Unresolved discrepancies remain visible and pause any claim that depends on them.

Address the main interpretation risk for Eli

A masked reviewer can still disagree, infer identities, or apply an unclear rule. Eli's team treats masking as one bias-control procedure and reports its limits. It does not convert reviewer agreement into proof that the baseline or later effect is valid. The review describes the observed pattern in original units, names plausible alternatives, and separates a methods judgment from a clinical recommendation. Software may calculate, graph, and surface missing evidence; qualified people interpret the series and make decisions within their authority.

Use the later phase responsibly for Eli

After unmasking, reviewers can examine the full design and later outcomes while the original judgments remain locked. The report distinguishes the masked readiness decision from clinical authorization and from the eventual functional-relation conclusion. Visual analysis examines level, trend, variability, immediacy, overlap, and consistency across comparable phases or tiers. A supplemental statistic can summarize a defined feature. It cannot establish clinical importance, functional relation, consent, authorization, or treatment fit on its own.

Protect Eli's access and participation

Keep Eli's augmentative and alternative communication, interpreters, mobility, food, water, bathroom use, prescribed care, health support, rest, relationships, and emergency help available throughout the three-site participation study. Use accessible consent and assent processes when applicable and respond to withdrawal, dissent, or distress. Necessary safety or clinical action proceeds through qualified authority even when it changes the planned phase timing.

Apply current sources to Eli's decision

Eli's page draws on research about systematic visual protocols, reviewer disagreement, and masked response-guided analysis while keeping the procedure explicitly editorial. The BACB ethics hub and CASP public summary provide professional context, while the BCBA Test Content Outline identifies examination content on measurement and single-case design. The WWC Version 5.0 handbook is a research-review standard. A single-case design review describes within-phase and between-phase visual analysis. Research on waiting for baseline stability examines response-guided timing, and work on systematic visual protocols, current analytic reflections, and visual-analysis software clarifies methods and limits. ASHA supports continuous AAC access.

Rehearse Eli's review before live use

Run the masked baseline-review packet with a fictional series before it governs Eli's data. Test minimum and maximum observations, missing values, equal timestamps, trend in both directions, extreme points, floor and ceiling values, a failed access gate, assent withdrawal, delayed implementation, and an amended rule. Store expected decisions, reviewer rationale, screenshots or graph versions, software version, and correction history. The rehearsal tests mechanics while leaving the live judgment to qualified reviewers.

Close Eli's phase-decision review

Review the masked baseline-review packet with Eli, the responsible clinician, and a methodologist familiar with the design. Preserve raw data, graph, rule, decision snapshot, reviewers, client input, access and safety evidence, phase implementation, deviations, sensitivity checks, later outcomes, and inference limits. Keep the page draft and noindex until the manifest-named reviews are complete.

Related resources

Sources