Cover Copy Compare
Study: Becker et al. (2009)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The student (n = 1) was performing at least 1.0 years below grade level in math. The teacher reported the student was having difficulty with basic facts in multiplication.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

The teacher working with the selected student (n=1) reported that the student was having difficulty with basic facts in multiplication. The student was performing over 1.0 years below grade level in math according to the Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Please describe the study design:

This was an ABC single-case design to determine the effects of two interventions on the increase of multiplication fluency.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

During each session, the student was given a Copy Cover Compare sheet which contained 10 multiplication facts. The student completed the sheet. After completion of the 10 problems, the student worked on a multiplication probe (with 90 multiplication facts) for 1 min. At the end of 1 min, the examiner reviewed any errors with the student. This condition lasted for 7 days. In the next phase of intervention, the student was given a Copy Cover Compare sheet which contained 10 multiplication facts. The student completed the sheet. After completion of the 10 problems, the student worked on a multiplication probe (with 90 multiplication facts) for 1 min. At the end of 1 min, an error drill was implemented by the examiner. If a fact was answered incorrectly, the examiner correctly modeled the math fact. The student then repeated the entire fact out loud several times and wrote the fact down on a piece of paper. After completion of the error drill, the student repeated, out loud, all incorrect facts. This condition lasted for 10 days.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

During baseline, the student worked for 1 min on a multiplication fact probe that contained 90 multiplication facts. This condition lasts for 3 days.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

Not reported.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

Not reported.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

• Targeted measures
  Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills, that the program was directly targeted to improve.
  • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
  • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
• Broader measures
  Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
  • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
  • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be on-task behavior in another setting.
• Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates, which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion: