Introduction: The purpose of the study presented here was to determine how well tactile graphics (specifically data analysis graphs) in secondary mathematics and science braille textbooks correlated with the print graphics. Method: A content analysis was conducted on 598 separate data analysis graphics from 10 mathematics and science textbooks. The researchers (the authors) cross-validated the findings through a comparative analysis of the tactile graphics of five shared textbooks. Results: Discrepancies were found between the print graphic and the tactile graphic in 12.5% of the sample. The most common discrepancy was differences in how data lines and data points were individualized in the print graphic compared to the tactile graphic. On the basis of the reviews of the graphics, the researchers answered a 5-point Likert-scale question (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) asking if the "tactile graphic is a valid representation of the print graphic." The overall score for the sample was 3.71 (SD = 1.60), with a Krippendorff alpha of 0.6328 (the measure of disagreement and alpha greater than 0.70 are consider moderate). Discussion: The findings demonstrate that while the majority of tactile graphics have good correlations to their print counterparts, there is still room for improvement. Some transcribers omitted a tactile graphic without providing a reason. Forty graphics (6.7%) were omitted from the braille transcription. Two textbooks were missing more than 85% of the tactile graphics of the data graphs. Implications for Practitioners: Tactile graphics in math and science books are important for a student to understand. Although most transcribers do an excellent job of creating valid tactile graphics, problems with many graphics still exist in textbooks. Practitioners need constantly to review the tactile graphics that are used in all classrooms and be prepared to create their own if needed. (Contains 3 tables.)