Incremental Rehearsal
Study: Codding et al. (2010)

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 There is an unpublished document (Tucker, 1988) that is available for free from the author.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

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(1) 93-105.

Participants Empty Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The participant was selected because she was referred to the grade level student support team for difficulty in basic multiplication facts.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
The student was identified as at risk for academic failure because she was referred for support due to difficulty with basic multiplication facts. Moreover, performance for digits correct per minute on the baseline probes fell in the frustration range for problem sets A (M = 3.8), B (M = 21.1), and C (M = 22.8).

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?
%

Provide a description of the demographic and other relevant characteristics of the case used in your study (e.g., student(s), classroom(s)).

Case (Name or number) Age/Grade Gender Race / Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status Disability Status ELL status Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics
test test test test test test test test

Design Half Bobble

Please describe the study design:
The study used a multiple-baseline, multiple probe across problem sets design. Following baseline each problem set was targeted sequentially beginning with problem set A. Three follow-up sessions were conducted for problem sets A and B. Follow-up data could not be obtained for problem set C as the school year ended.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
Standard procedures were followed according to Burns (2005). Prior to each session, all 30 unknown cards were presented to Sarah in order to provide a measure of retention from session to session. Any cards answered incorrectly, not at all, or correctly after 2 s had lapsed were counted as unknown. Known and unknown facts were recorded prior to each intervention session. A random selection of nine known facts was identified from each pile. Working in problem sets beginning with A, the first unknown fact with the answer was read aloud to Sarah by the interventionist after which Sarah was asked to restate the fact with the answer. Next, the interventionist presented Sarah with the first known fact. This sequence was repeated so that the first unknown fact was presented followed by the first and second known facts until all nine known facts were practiced after the first unknown fact (see Burns 2005). Once this sequence was completed, the first unknown fact became the first known fact (replacing the last known fact) for the presentation of the second unknown fact. Unknown facts were presented and rehearsed individually as described above until the sequence was completed or three errors occurred (Burns 2005). The average number of items rehearsed each session was six. Following each session two or three of the following were presented: (a) problem set A probe, (b) problem set B probe, (c) problem set C probe, (d) fraction probe, (e) word problem probe, or (f) subskill mastery multiplication probe facts 3–9.

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]):
The baseline condition was business as usual.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
Replication was shown with a multiple-baseline approach across probe sets.

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 three demonstrations of experimental control occurred by having three probe sets that were implemented in a multiple-baseline design.

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

Fidelity of Implementation Full 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.)?

Condition A
Weeks
12.00
Sessions per week
2.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
20.00
Condition B
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
Condition C
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The interventionist was a female graduate student in school psychology. She was trained in the assessment and intervention procedures by the first author.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
A typed intervention protocol consisting of scripted instructions for each step contained in the incremental rehearsal procedure was created according to procedures outlined by Burns (2005). An identical protocol was provided to an independent observer. Procedural integrity was assessed by an independent observer during 23% of the sessions. A checklist, which was identical to the protocols used by the interventionist, was created to assess procedural integrity for each intervention. The checklist contained the following information: (a) the intervention steps, (b) dependent variable administration steps, and (c) the materials required. Every intervention and dependent variable administration step was described in detail and included scripts that the interventionist was to follow. The independent observer was required to record a checkmark for presence of the required materials and when the intervention and assessment probe steps were correctly implemented by the experimenter. The number of steps checked by the independent observer was divided by the total number of steps listed for the procedure and then multiplied by 100.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Procedural integrity across observed sessions was 99%.

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
No.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

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.
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Targeted Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Evidence Relevance
Broader Measure 1 Yes A1 A2
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance
Admin Measure 1 Yes A2
If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:
The study also collected data from a pre- and post-test general outcome measure, a fraction probe, a word problem probe, and a subskill mastery multiplication probe facts 3–9. However, those data were not displayed experimentally. There were also maintenance data for two other students, but those data were excluded here because they did not have three demonstrations of effect.

Results Full Bobble

Describe the method of analyses you used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g., visual inspection, computation of change score, mean difference):
The study reported visual analysis.

Please present results in terms of within and between phase patterns. Data on the following data characteristics must be included: level, trend, variability, immediacy of the effect, overlap, and consistency of data patterns across similar conditions. Submitting only means and standard deviations for phases is not sufficient. Data must be included for each outcome measure (targeted, broader, and administrative if applicable) that was described above.
Introduction of incremental rehearsal produced immediate level changes for problem sets A and B and a gradual increase for problem set C for both digits correct per minute (DCPM) and percentage of items correct. Baseline performance for DCPM fell in the frustration range for problem sets A (M = 3.8), B (M = 21.1), and C (M = 22.8). Baseline DCPM data were stable for problem set A but yielded slightly increasing trends for problem sets B and C. Baseline data for percentage of correct problems was variable for sets B and C, but with a level trend. Percentage data for set A declined. The treatment condition resulted in stable percent data that closely approximated or equaled 100%. Consistent with the percentage accuracy data, introduction of incremental rehearsal produced level changes for problem sets A (M = 30.0) and B (M = 48.7) and a gradual increase in trend for problem set C (M = 44.6). Performance across all three problem sets met mastery level criteria ([49 DCPM; Burns et al. 2006). There was 100% nonoverlap for both DCPM and accuracy for sets A and B, and 75% for both for set C.

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