Taped Problems

Study: McCallum, Skinner, & Hutchins (2004)

McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 129-147. doi:10.1300/J370v20n02_08
Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Taped Problems is a fluency-building intervention typically used to increase knowledge of math facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division) or numerals. With Taped Problems, teachers first decide on a set of math facts for the student to practice. The teacher makes a worksheet with the facts and a blank space for the fact answer. The teacher then creates an audio recording where each fact is read aloud. The teacher pauses for a brief delay (e.g., 1-5 seconds). Then, the teacher says the answer to the math fact. After the recording is created, the student listen to the recording. When the teacher pauses on the recording after saying a fact, the student is supposed to write the answer to the math fact during the pause. Then, the student’s answer is reviewed as the teacher on the recording states the answer. With Taped Problems, the brief delay on the recording may be altered to encourage more rapid or automatic response to the math fact.

 

The academic area of focus for Taped Problems is math.

Many research and practitioner articles have been published that discuss using Taped Problems to increase math fluency.

Taped Problems is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore does not have a formal pricing plan.

 

Teacher must understand how to create audio reecordings for Taped Problems. That is the only required training.

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Peter was unable to complete his assignments or tests quickly enough to receive passing grades.

Demographics:

 

Age / Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Peter 10 years old; 4th grade M African American        

Training of Instructors: The experimenter was the first author. No other information provided.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? No

Fidelity of Implementation: Partially Convincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: A second observer gathered integrity data during 5 of the 15 intervention sessions. The second observer used a checklist of items. 

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Implementation integrity was 100%. 

Measures Targeted: Unconvincing Evidence

Measures Broader: Data Unavailable

Targeted  Measure Reliability Statistics Relevance to Program Focus Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

Researcher-designed division assessment

Not reported

Directly related to Taped Problems

N/A

Broader Measure Reliability Statistics Relevance to Program Focus Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 1 Math

Mean ES - Targeted: N/A

Mean ES - Broader: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): Partially Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference):

On the percentage of items answered correctly (Figure 1), Peter’s division accuracy was similar during baseline and during intervention.

On the digits answered correctly per minute (Figure 2), Peter’s fluency improved dramatically after Taped Problems began. Maintenance checks for sets A and B indicate Peter’s fluency was maintained over time.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns:

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Individual

Duration of Intervention: 8-10 minutes, 5 times a week, 3 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Training is not required

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies