Cover Copy Compare
Study: Codding et al. (2007)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were identified by their 6th-grade teachers as requiring additional support for development of math calculation fluency.

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

Students (n=3) were identified by their sixth-grade teachers as requiring additional support for development of math calculation fluency.

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:

Sessions occurred 3 times each week for 16 weeks. Each session lasted approximately 15 min. An alternating treatments design (ATD) was employed following stable or decreasing baseline (for Digits Correct Per Minute [DCPM]) or a stable or increasing baseline (for Digits Incorrect Per Minute [DIPM]). The ATD allowed for comparing two treatment conditions with a single subject. Follow-up sessions were conducted 4 and 12 days after treatment finished (for 2 participants) and 12 days after treatment finished (for 1 participant).

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

With Cover Copy Compare, students work through 5 steps: (1) look at a problem with an answer, (2) cover the problem with an index card, (3) write the solution to the problem without an answer, (4) uncover the problem and solution, and (5) compare answers. If the student’s answer did not match correctly, students repeated the steps. With Cover Copy Compare with performance feedback based on DCPM, students used the same 5 steps. Before the probe was administered at the end of each session, the examiner provided the student’s baseline performance score of DCPM, presented in graph form. The examiner encouraged the student to answer more digits correct with the probe. With Cover Copy Compare with performance feedback based on DIPM, students used the same 5 steps. Before the probe, the examiner provider the student’s baseline performance score of DIPM, presented in graph form. The examiner encouraged the student to circle and graph the number of DIPM.

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]):

Baseline data was collected for 4 days. Then, treatment started and continued for 45 sessions. Cover Copy Compare was implemented 1 day, Cover Copy Compare plus feedback with DCPM the next, then Cover Copy Compare plus feedback with DIPM was implemented the 3rd day. This pattern continued until the end of the study.

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

N/A

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).

ABCABC design; inclusion of 3 participants.

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

N/A

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: