Opportunities to Respond

Study: Narayan, Heward, Garner, Courson, & Omness (1990)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

Opportunities to Respond (OtR) is an intervention that involves providing all students in a group or classroom with the means (e.g., dry erase board, response cards) to respond to all questions posed by the teacher. The intent is to increase engagement by giving students the opportunity to respond to academic questions at a higher rate than the traditional form of hand raising provides. 

Opportunities to Respond is intended for use in Kindergarten through high school. It is intended for use with students with disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, English Language Learners, and any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties.

The areas of focus are externalizing behavior (including high levels of disengagement, and disruptive behavior) and internalizing behavior (including anxiety). 

Opportunities to Respond is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan. All that is required for implementation is supplies for responding (e.g., cards, white boards, and markers). No costs are associated with implementation. 

Opportunities to Respond is designed for use with small groups or whole classrooms of students. Only one interventionist is needed to implement the program.

Program administration varies depending on program procedures. It should be implemented until effective.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals or instructions for implementation.

The program is not affiliated with a broad school or class wide management program.

Technology is not required for implementation. 

Training is not required for the interventionist thought if needed can likely be done in less than one hour.

The interventionist must at a minimum be a paraprofessional.

Training manuals and materials are not available although the intervention is clearly described in published research. There is no ongoing support available for practitioners. 

 

Participants: Unconvincing Evidence

Risk Status: Not reported.

Demographics: Students were 9-11 years old, in fourth grade, and in a general education classroom. No other information is given about these students.

Training of Instructors: The observer was the classroom teacher and the practicing teacher was a researcher. No training on the intervention was described.

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? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Not reported.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Teacher presentation rate

No reliability discussed   N/A
Number of student responses No reliability discussed   N/A
Accuracy of student responses No reliability discussed   N/A
Daily quiz scores No reliability discussed   N/A

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): 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): Visual inspection of student graphs, total number of response participation in both conditions, including accuracy, and mean daily quiz scores for each student during both conditions.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Comparison of each of the six student’s oral responses between conditions shows immediate effect and no overlapping data points for each phase change for all students. In the baseline condition, students’ daily oral responses range from 0-5 responses. In the response card condition, student oral responses range from 6-25. There was within phase variability and no clear trends.

The mean teacher presentation rate for the two hand-raising phases combined was 1.9 per minute, the average number of times a student raised their hand among the targeted students was 0.9 (range of 0.69 to 1.57); for response cards combined, it was 1.2 per minute, targeted students actively responded an average of 15.6 times per session (range of 13.5 to 17.6) with an average of 13 correct responses (range of 8.9 to 15.4).

Quiz performance, overall, was higher during the response card condition. Mean across the students for the first and second baseline was 7.3/10 and 6.5/10 and for the first and second intervention phases was 8.2/10 and 7.8/10.

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing, Internalizing

Delivery: Small Groups, (n = 3-30)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessionals, 0-1 hour of training

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 0 studies