Incremental Rehearsal
Study: Peterson et al. (2014)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The students attending kindergarten in a public elementary school in Minneapolis and each was previously identified by the school district as an English language learner (ELL) that received ELL services prior to the study. In addition, district assessments indicated that each participant scored between levels of “entering” and “beginning” English proficiency.

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

Participants were chosen based on Letter–Sound Fluency scores of 14 or below on the January administration of the Minneapolis Kindergarten Assessment, which is the district benchmark for students not projected to meet the proficiency standard on the state high-stake assessment in third grade. In addition, all students scored a 0 on a baseline measure of letter sound 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?

0.0%

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:

A multiple-baseline design across sets of letter sounds was used to evaluate the effect of IR on the primary dependent variable, letter–sound expression. At the beginning of the study, the interventionist tested participant letter–sound expression on all three letter–sound sets (i.e., Set A, Set B, and Set C) for four consecutive sessions until a stable baseline was established. When a stable baseline was established, intervention was implemented with the first set of letter sounds (i.e., Set A). A stable baseline was not a criterion for introducing subsequent letter–sound sets. Intervention on the first set continued until the participant mastered all four unknown sounds (i.e., labeled correctly at the beginning of at least one session with no subsequent errors in following sessions). Intervention was then discontinued for the first letter–sound set, and those sounds were randomly used as knowns with subsequent sets to promote maintenance of the sounds. The second and third letter–sound sets were introduced once mastery was attained in each previous set. Data continued to be collected on mastered letter–sound sets to document maintenance.

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

One-on-one intervention with participants took place at tables in the hallway outside of the participants' classrooms for 10 to 15 min approximately three times per week for nine weeks or until all letter–sound sets were mastered. Participants were taken out of their classrooms during times that were previously agreed upon by the teacher and interventionist so as not to interfere with core curriculum. During each intervention session, the interventionist used a script to standardize intervention procedure across participants. During each session, two unknown sounds were practiced within two incremental rehearsal sequences. In the first sequence, the first unknown sound was modeled by the interventionist (e.g., “This is the letter d. It makes the /d/ sound.”). The interventionist then asked the participant to say the sound (e.g., “Say /d/.”), confirmed a correct response (e.g., “Good, /d/.”), or corrected an incorrect response (e.g., “This sound is /d/. What sound?”). The interventionist then provided a model of a word using the sound (e.g., “/d/ is the first sound in the word dog.” or “/x/ is the last sound of the word fox.”). Next, the interventionist again showed the first unknown and asked the participant to name the sound (i.e., “What sound?”). After acknowledging a correct response or correcting an incorrect response, the unknown was shown again, followed by the first known (e.g., /s/). The unknown (e.g., /d/) was then shown again, followed by the first and second knowns (e.g., /s/, /m/). This procedure continued until all six knowns were presented, thus giving the participant seven opportunities to name the unknown sound as it was interspersed with the known sounds. If the participant made fewer than three errors during the first sequence, a second sequence was conducted. At the beginning of the second incremental rehearsal sequence, one known sound was removed from the set and the second unknown was inserted. The standard sequence described in this section was followed again with the second unknown. This repeated pattern allowed six additional opportunities for practicing the first unknown sound that was inserted in the set for the second incremental rehearsal sequence and seven opportunities to practice the second unknown sound. If a participant made an error during the session or did not respond within 3 s, a standard error correction procedure was used (e.g., “That sound is /d/. What sound?”). The intervention session was terminated if a participant made three errors within the session. At the end of the session, the interventionist shuffled all cards, with the two unknowns separated by at least one card, and presented each card to the participant for review. The same error correction procedures were used during the review.

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 consisted of conducting letter–sound expression assessments on four separate days prior to beginning intervention on Set A. Following initial baseline assessment, Sets B and C were assessed weekly until intervention was initiated for each set.

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

Replication was demonstrated across letter sets for each participant. All three participants received three treatment conditions.

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).

The study used a multiple baseline across letter set design with three letter sets for each of the three participants.

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

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:

Letter-sound expression was used to determine instructional stimuli and the data were not reported. The Minneapolis Kindergarten Assessment was used as a screener.