Opportunities to Respond

Study: Armendariz & Umbreit (1999)

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.



Age/ Grade



Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: 

3rd Grade

11 girls; 11 boys


Lower SES




Training of Instructors: The teacher was a 42-year-old woman with 15 years of teaching experience. Training was conducted across four class periods. During the first two class periods, the researcher taught the lesson and modeled intervention procedures. The teacher then practiced for two sessions and received feedback from the researcher. Also, the teacher was given a written sample of the sequence to be followed including a) keep the pace brisk, b) cue the students to write their answers on the card, c) cue students to show the board, d) provide the correct answer, e) choose student who did not get the correct answer to help the teacher work out the problem, and f) present the next problem.

Design: Partially 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? No

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: Partially Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Disruptive behavior 

Inter-observer agreement    


Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group






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): Mean scores of intervals of disruptive behavior for each student in each phase were analyzed.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Mean condition data are reported for each student. Each student had a lower mean percentage of disruptive behavior during the response card condition than during the hand-raising conditions. Percentage decreases in problem behavior ranged from 59% to 100%.

Graphic data for disruptive behavior are reported for the class as a whole and indicate an immediate level change (with no overlapping data points) from baseline to intervention (and within phase consistency) and an upward trend in disruptive behavior during return to baseline. Mean class disruption during initial baseline was 43.3%, intervention was 8.3% respectively, return to baseline was 15.3% and follow-up (baseline condition) was 34.8%.

During baseline, individual levels of disruptive behavior varied considerably. Individual variability per session decreased when response cards were implemented and gradually increased with the return to the baseline/hand-raising condition.

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