Incremental Rehearsal
Study: Burns (2007)

Summary

A student is presented with flashcards containing unknown items added in to a group of known items. Presenting known information along with unknown can increase retention of the newly learned items, behavioral momentum and resulting time on task. Research shows that this technique can be used with sight/vocabulary words, simple math facts, letter names, and survival words/signs.

Target Grades:
Age 3-5, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with intellectual disabilities
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Alphabet knowledge
  • Fluency
  • Computation
Where to Obtain:
James Tucker
The intervention is an instructional technique that is available to anyone.
The intervention is listed on several websites including: http://ebi.missouri.edu/?s=incremental+rehearsal and http://interventioncentral.com/academic-interventions/math-facts/math-computation-promote
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Free

Incremental Rehearsal is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
Training not required


The technique is described in two places. There is an unpublished document (Tucker, 1988) that is available for free from the author. It is also described in Tucker & Burns (2016), which is available for free to members of the National Association of School Psychologists. The technique has also been described in the dozens of articles that have been published about it.

Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
10
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
3
Minimum Number of Weeks:
10
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
No
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

A student is presented with flashcards containing unknown items added in to a group of known items. Presenting known information along with unknown can increase retention of the newly learned items, behavioral momentum and resulting time on task. Research shows that this technique can be used with sight/vocabulary words, simple math facts, letter names, and survival words/signs.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
selected Third grade
selected Fourth grade
selected Fifth grade
selected Sixth grade
selected Seventh grade
selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
selected Students with learning disabilities
selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
selected Alphabet knowledge
not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

not selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonics/word study
not selected Comprehension
selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
The intervention is an instructional technique that is available to anyone.
Phone Number
Website
The intervention is listed on several websites including: http://ebi.missouri.edu/?s=incremental+rehearsal and http://interventioncentral.com/academic-interventions/math-facts/math-computation-promote

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$0.00
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

Incremental Rehearsal is a non-commercial intervention and, therefore, does not have a formal pricing plan.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
not selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
10
Minimum number of sessions per week
3
Minimum number of weeks
10
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:
The upper range for dosage would be 15 minutes per session, 4 times per week, which amounts to 60 minutes a week.

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
No

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training not required

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
not selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
The technique is described in two places. There is an unpublished document (Tucker, 1988) that is available for free from the author. It is also described in Tucker & Burns (2016), which is available for free to members of the National Association of School Psychologists. The technique has also been described in the dozens of articles that have been published about it.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?
No

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

Beck, M., Burns, M. K., & Lau, M. (2009). The effect of preteaching reading skills on the on-task behavior of children identified with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 91-99.

Bunn, R., Burns, M. K., Hoffman, H. H., & Newman, C. L. (2005).  Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter identification with a preschool-aged child.   Journal of Evidence Based Practice for Schools, 6, 124-134.

Burns, M. K. (2005).  Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation.  Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237-249.

Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313.

Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of opportunities to respond within a drill model when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263.

Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with below-average IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284-292.

Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004).  Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled.  Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-314.

Burns, M. K., Hodgson, J., Parker, D. C., & Fremont, K. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of text previewing and preteaching keywords as small-group reading comprehension strategies with middle school students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 241-252. 

Burns, M. K., & Kimosh, A. (2005).  Using incremental rehearsal to teach sight-words to adult students with moderate mental retardation.  Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 6, 135-148.

Burns, M. K., & Sterling‐Turner, H. E. (2010). Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 126-134.

Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185-202.

Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93-105.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., & Hoffman, J. A. (2016). Parent-administered computer-assisted tutoring targeting letter-sound knowledge: Evaluation via multiple-baseline across three preschool students. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 39-53.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer-assisted tutoring program targeting letter-sound expression. School Psychology Review, 43, 210-221.

Joseph, L., Eveleigh, E., Konrad, M., Neef, N., & Volpe, R. (2012). Comparison of the efficiency of two flashcard drill methods on children's reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 317-337.

Joseph, L. M., & Schisler, R. A. (2007). Getting the “Most bang for your buck.” Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of phonic and whole word reading techniques during repeated reading lessons. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 69-90.

Klingbeil, D. A., Moeyaert, M., Archer, C. T., Chimboza, T. M., & Zwolski Jr, S. A. (2017). Efficacy of peer-mediated incremental rehearsal for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 46, 122-140.

Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 781-792.

Kwong, E., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Preliminary study of the effect of incremental rehearsal with a morphological component for teaching Chinese character recognition. School Psychology International.

MacQuarrie-Klender, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B.  (2002).  Comparison of retention rates using traditional, Drill Sandwich, and Incremental Rehearsal flashcard methods.  School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.

Malloy, K. J., Gilbertson, D., & Maxfiled, J. (2007). Using brief experimental analysis for selecting reading interventions for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 36, 291 – 310.

Matchett, D. L., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Increasing word recognition fluency with an English language learner. Journal of Evidence Based Practices in Schools, 10, 194-209.

Mulé, C. M., Volpe, R. J., Fefer, S., Leslie, L. K., & Luiselli, J. (2015). Comparative effectiveness of two sight-word reading interventions for a student with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 304-316.

Nist, L., & Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders' word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294-308.

Petersen-Brown, S., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Adding a vocabulary component to incremental rehearsal to enhance retention and generalization. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 245-255.

Peterson, M., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Wilson, J., Rahn, N. L., Egan, A., & McComas, J. (2014). Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten English language learners using incremental rehearsal. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 97-107.

Rahn, N. L., Wilson, J., Egan, A., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Peterson, M., & McComas, J. (2015). Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 71-91.

Scholin, S. E., Zaslofsky, A., Burns, M. K., Hall, M., Varma, S., & Volpe, R. J. (2016). Examining the use of spacing effect to increase the efficiency of Incremental Rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 404-415.

Swehla, S. E., Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Hall, M. S., Varma, S., & Volpe, R. J. (2016). Examing the use of spacing effect to increase the efficiency of incremental rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 404-415.

Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593-609.

Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2011). Computer-assisted tutoring: Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 332-342.

Zaslofski, A., Scholin, S. E., Burns, M. K., & Varma. S. (2016). Comparison of opportunities to respond and generation effect as potential causal mechanisms for incremental rehearsal with multiplication combinations. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 71-78

Study Information

Study Citations

Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3) 297-313.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Each student was in third grade and was diagnosed with a specific learning disability in reading by school personnel using state guidelines. In addition, each student had a multidisciplinary evaluation team assessment in the previous 2 years, had full-scale IQ standard scores between 90 and 110, reading decoding age-based standard scores between 70 and 80, and a current individualized educational program that included 1 to 2 hours of special education support each day and a short-term objective that addressed reading fluency.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students were diagnosed with a learning disability in reading.

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?
100.0%

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?
%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:
Preteaching words with Incremental Rehearsal.

Specify which condition is the control condition:
There is one control condition, which consisted of business as usual plus a one-on-one guided reading lesson three times per week.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3 96.7% 96.7% 0.00
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 10.0% 13.3% 0.18
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 3.3% 0.0% 2.08
White 83.3% 83.3% 0.00
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities 96.7% 96.7% 0.00
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number		 Control
Number		 Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 30.0% 33.3% 0.08
Male 66.7% 63.3% 0.11

Mean Effect Size

0.35

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

There were no significant pretest differences for the two groups.

Design Full Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Random
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
One student from each [included] resource room was randomly selected for inclusion in the study. Next progress in the local reading curriculum was assessed with weekly CBM probes, using the third-grade general curriculum reading basal for 3 weeks in September 2003. CBM data were also collected for students who participated in the same resource room as the selected student, attended the same sending general education classroom, and who spent a matched amount of time participating in special education services. Next, to assure equivalency between students, the student whose CBM median baseline point most closely matched the original student’s median baseline point was also selected to participate in the study. Thus, 30 pairs of students were established from which one child was randomly selected to receive the treatment and one was randomly selected as a control student. One student from the treatment group moved from the district leaving 58 students total or 29 pairs.

What was the unit of assignment?
Students
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

Fidelity of Implementation Half Bobble

How was the program delivered?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
12.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
12.50
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Each was a special education teacher candidate at a local university who was completing a course on assessment in special education. Each interventionist was observed twice during the intervention session, once during the first week.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Each interventionist was observed twice with a fidelity checklist.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
The intervention was completed with 93% accuracy.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
No.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Half Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Effect Size

Effect size represents the how much performance changed because of the intervention. The larger the effect size, the greater the impact participating in the intervention had.

According to guidelines from the What Works Clearinghouse, an effect size of 0.25 or greater is “substantively important.” Additionally, effect sizes that are statistically significant are more trustworthy than effect sizes of the same magnitude that are not statistically significant.

Effect Size Dial

The purpose of the effect size dial is to help users understand the strength of a tool relative to other tools on the Tools Chart.

  • The range represents where most effect sizes fall within reading or math based on effect sizes from tools on the Tools Chart.
  • The orange pointer shows the average effect size for this study.

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

1.45*
Average Reading Effect Size

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
Average across all targeted measures Full Sample 1.45*
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
Average across all broader measures Full Sample --
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
Average across all admin measures Full Sample --
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size
* = p ≤ 0.05; † = Vendor did not provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes.
For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.
Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

 

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
9
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Bunn, R., Burns, M. K., Hoffman, H. H. & Newman, C. J. (2005). Using Incremental Rehearsal to Teach Letter Identification with a Preschool-Aged Child. Journal of Evidence-Based Practice for Schools, 6, 124-134.

Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of Opportunities to Respond within a Drill Model when Rehearsing Sight Words with a Child with Mental Retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250-263.

Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching Unknown Key Words with Incremental Rehearsal to Improve Reading Fluency and Comprehension with Children Identified as Reading Disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-314.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer-assisted tutoring program targeting letter-sound expression. School Psychology Review, 43, 210-221.

DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., & Hoffman, J. A. (2016). Parent-administered computer-assisted tutoring targeting letter-sound knowledge: Evaluation via multiple-baseline across three preschool students. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 39-53.

Klingbeil, D. A., Moeyaert, M., Archer, C. T., Chimboza, T. M., & Zwolski Jr, S. A. (2017). Efficacy of peer-mediated incremental rehearsal for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 46, 122-140.

Kwong, E., & Burns, M. K. (in press). Preliminary study of the effect of incremental rehearsal with a morphological component for teaching Chinese character recognition. School Psychology International.

Malloy, K. J., Gilbertson, D., & Maxfiled, J. (2007). Using brief experimental analysis for selecting reading interventions for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 36, 291 – 310.

Rahn, N. L., Wilson, J., Egan, A., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Peterson, M., & McComas, J. (2015). Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 71-91.

Data Collection Practices

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.

Summary

Program Information
Descriptive Information
Program Specifications
Training
Evidence Base

Study Information
Study Citations
Participants
Design
Fidelity of Implementation
Measures and Results

Additional Research

Data Collection Practices