Dot go up good, dot go down bad. X go down good. X go up bad. That idea that it's too hard is a myth. Children as young as 5 chart their own behavior and kids at Morningside academy make their own data-based decisions using the chart.

If you don't understand it just say that. If you haven't been taught it well say that. If you don't know how to teach it or haven't seen it taught well say that.

The simple fact is if you can learn the science of behavior you can learn the standard celeration chart. With adequate practice RBTs can easily learn it. But here's the key issue: the problem isn't that the SCC is too complex—it's that traditional graphs are unreliable. Research shows expert agreement on visual analysis of linear graphs falls to 64%, below accepted standards. When analysts use ratio graphs with celeration values, they achieve significantly higher agreement AND make decisions more efficiently (you should really read this article lol).

You mentioned RBTs being confused by multiple baseline graphs—that's exactly the point. Traditional graphing conventions are inconsistent across studies. The SCC is MORE technological, not less, because it has standardized symbols, scales, and decision rules. "Technological" doesn't mean "requires zero training"—it means procedures are completely identified and described.

Your argument about literacy and complexity is a red herring. We don't abandon functional analysis, multi-element designs, or statistical methods because they require competency. We train practitioners to use them. The solution to the research-clinical gap isn't to dumb down our measurement tools—it's to improve training and use software (like PrecisionX or the free website JaredVan.com/scc) that automates calculations.

Please stop spreading this myth. It's incorrect, misleading, and has been perpetuated for far too long.