Incremental Rehearsal

Study: Codding, Archer, & Connell (2010)

Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A Systematic Replication and Extension of Using Incremental Rehearsal to Improve Multiplication Skills: An Investigation of Generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93-105.

Descriptive Information

Usage

Acquisition and Cost

Program Specifications and Requirements

Training

A student is presented with flashcards containing unknown items added in to a group of known items. Presenting known information along with unknown can increase retention of the newly learned items, behavioral momentum and resulting time on task. Research shows that this technique can be used with sight/vocabulary words, simple math facts, letter names, and survival words/signs.

Incremental Rehearsal is intended for use in Kindergarten through eighth grade. The program is intended for use with students with disabilities (including learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities), and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic area of focus is early literacy (alphabet knowledge), reading (fluency), and mathematics (computation).

Where to Obtain: 
The intervention is an instructional technique that is available to anyone.

The intervention is listed on several websites including: http://ebi.missouri.edu/?s=incremental+rehearsal and http://interventioncentral.com/academic-interventions/math-facts/math-computation-promote-mastery-math-facts-through-incremental-re.

Cost: Incremental Rehearsal is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan.

It is recommended that Incremental Rehearsal is used with individual students 10-15 minutes per session, three to four days a week, for 10-15 weeks.

The program does not include a highly specified teacher’s manual.

Incremental Rehearsal does not require technology.

Training is not required for the instructor.

The minimum qualifications of instructors are that they must be paraprofessionals. The program does not assume that the instructor has expertise in a given area. 

Training manuals and materials are available. The technique is described in two places. There is an unpublished document (Tucker, 1988) that is available for free from the author and is included in this application. It is also described in Tucker & Burns (2016), which is available for free to members of the National Association of School Psychologists and is included in this application. The technique has also been described in the dozens of articles that have been published about it.

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Sample size: The participant was selected because she was referred to the grade level student support team for difficulty in basic multiplication facts.

Risk Status: The student was identified as at risk for academic failure because she was referred for support due to difficulty with basic multiplication facts. Moreover, performance for digits correct per minute on the baseline probes fell in the frustration range for problem sets A (M = 3.8), B (M = 21.1), and C (M = 22.8).

 

  Age/Grade Gender Race-ethncity Socioeconomic Status Disability Status ELL Status Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics
Case 1: Sarah Seventh Female Hispanic Not Reported None English Speaker Sarah was a 12-year-old, seventh grade, Hispanic girl from a midsized northeast suburban middle school (grades 6-8). She participated in general education classes, was not diagnosed with a learning disability, and English was her primary language. As part of the standard curriculum in seventh grade, Sarah participated in two mathematics courses (interactive Mathematics, Number Sense & Geometry).

Training of Instructors: The interventionist was a female graduate student in school psychology. She was trained in the assessment and intervention procedures by the first author.

Design: Partially Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase?: No

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control?: No

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence?: N/A

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent?: Yes

Fidelity of Implementation: Convincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: A typed intervention protocol consisting of scripted instructions for each step contained in the incremental rehearsal procedure was created according to procedures outlined by Burns (2005). An identical protocol was provided to an independent observer. Procedural integrity was assessed by an independent observer during 23% of the sessions. A checklist, which was identical to the protocols used by the interventionist, was created to assess procedural integrity for each intervention. The checklist contained the following information: (a) the intervention steps, (b) dependent variable administration steps, and (c) the materials required. Every intervention and dependent variable administration step was described in detail and included scripts that the interventionist was to follow. The independent observer was required to record a checkmark for presence of the required materials and when the intervention and assessment probe steps were correctly implemented by the experimenter. The number of steps checked by the independent observer was divided by the total number of steps listed for the procedure and then multiplied by 100.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Procedural integrity across observed sessions was 99%.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Measures Broader: N/A

Targeted Measure Reliability Statistics Relevance to Program Instructional Content Exposure to Related Content Among Control Group
Digits correct per minute on single-digit multiplication probes. The probes were made of 10 items that made up the problems in the three problem sets.

Interrater = 100%

Alternate form = 0.91 (NCII Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart for math computation with 7th grade students)

The measure was based on the 10 problems used in each problem set. No other rehearsal of single-digit multiplication facts occurred during the baseline phase, but each student was taught multi-digit multiplication with base-ten blocks and rehearsed single- and double-digit problems with untimed worksheets.
Percent of problems correct on single-digit multiplication probes. The probes were made of 10 items that made up the problems in the three problem sets.

Interrater = 100%

Alternate form = 0.90 (NCII Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart for math computation with 7th grade students)

The measure was based on the 10 problems used in each problem set. No other rehearsal of single-digit multiplication facts occurred during the baseline phase, but each student was taught multi-digit multiplication with base-ten blocks and rehearsed single- and double-digit problems with untimed worksheets.

 

 

 

Number of Outcome Measures: 2 Math

Mean ES - Targeted: N/A

Mean ES - Broader: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): 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): The study reported visual analysis.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Introduction of incremental rehearsal produced immediate level changes for problem sets A and B and a gradual increase for problem set C for both digits correct per minute (DCPM) and percentage of items correct. Baseline performance for DCPM fell in the frustration range for problem sets A (M = 3.8), B (M = 21.1), and C (M = 22.8). Baseline DCPM data were stable for problem set A but yielded slightly increasing trends for problem sets B and C. Baseline data for percentage of correct problems was variable for sets B and C, but with a level trend. Percentage data for set A declined. The treatment condition resulted in stable percent data that closely approximated or equaled 100%. Consistent with the percentage accuracy data, introduction of incremental rehearsal produced level changes for problem sets A (M = 30.0) and B (M = 48.7) and a gradual increase in trend for problem set C (M = 44.6). Performance across all three problem sets met mastery level criteria ([49 DCPM; Burns et al. 2006). There was 100% nonoverlap for both DCPM and accuracy for sets A and B, and 75% for both for set C.

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: No

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Individual

Duration of Intervention: 10-15 Minutes, 3-4 times a week, 10-15 weeks

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional , Training 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: 9 studies

Bunn, R., Burns, M. K., Hoffman, H. H. & Newman, C. J. (2005). Using Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification with a Preschool-Aged Child. Journal of Evidence-Based Practice for Schools, 6, 124-134.

Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of Opportunities to Respond within a Drill Model when Rehearsing Sight Words with a Child with Mental Retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263.

Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching Unknown Key Words with Incremental Rehearsal to Improve Reading Fluency and Comprehension with Children Identified as Reading Disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-314.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer-assisted tutoring program targeting letter-sound expression. School Psychology Review, 43, 210-221.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., & Hoffman, J. A. (2016). Parent-administered computer-assisted tutoring targeting letter-sound knowledge: Evaluation via multiple-baseline across three preschool students. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 39-53.

Klingbeil, D. A., Moeyaert, M., Archer, C. T., Chimboza, T. M., & Zwolski Jr, S. A. (2017). Efficacy of peer-mediated incremental rehearsal for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 46, 122-140.

Kwong, E., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Preliminary study of the effect of incremental rehearsal with a morphological component for teaching Chinese character recognition. School Psychology International.

Malloy, K. J., Gilbertson, D., & Maxfiled, J. (2007). Using brief experimental analysis for selecting reading interventions for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 36, 291 – 310.

Rahn, N. L., Wilson, J., Egan, A., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Peterson, M., & McComas, J. (2015). Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 71-91.