Incremental Rehearsal
Study: Matchett & Burns (2009)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The participant was selected because she was an English language learner who was also experiencing reading difficulties.

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

The participants scored below the 15th percentile on the Measures of Academic Progress, which was a group-administered screener for reading. She also read 38 words per minute on a grade-level curriculum-based measure of reading, which was below the 25th percentile on a national norm.

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?

%

Please describe the study design:

The study used a multiple-baseline across stimulus sets design. The study was conducted using fluency of sight word recognition as the dependent variable. A series of 1-minute timings was conducted with the 300 high frequency word list each week before implementing the intervention. The entire word list was written on 3 X 5 index cards, with one word on each card, and clustered into three groups of 100 words that were randomly ordered (shuffled). The first group was the 100 most frequently used words, then the next 100 in group two, and the third group was the third 100. To begin the intervention Elena was taught words from the first 100 words. Instruction in the second 100 words started after 6 weeks and instruction in the third 100 started after 7 weeks (1 week after starting the second 100). This staggered implementation was used to meet requirements of a multiple baseline design and to provide enough baseline data. While Elena was mastering word list 1, the examiner concurrently collected baseline data on the second and third word lists in a randomly selected order of presentation.

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

Words for the study were obtained from a frequently used word list (Fry, Kress, & Fountoukidis, 2000). Before beginning the intervention the words from the first 300 most frequently used words were presented to the student to assess if they were known or unknown. Each word was hand printed on a 3 X 5 index card in black ink using a landscape orientation, and was presented to the child one at a time. If the word was correctly stated within 3 seconds of presentation and then used correctly within a sentence (i.e., used in grammatically correct sentence with correct syntactic and semantic properties), it was counted as known. However, if the child did not correctly state the word within 3 seconds, it was identified as an unknown word. Words that the child could orally state within 3 seconds but for which the child did not provide a correct sentence were excluded from the study. Assessing whether or not the student could use the word in a sentence was done to determine if she understood the meaning of the word. After identifying nine known words and one unknown word from the schools frequently used word list, the researcher taught the unknown words with Tucker’s (1989) Incremental Rehearsal (IR) model. Subsequent unknown words were found by randomly selecting a word from the pool of unknown words and repeating the process mentioned above to assure that the word was still unknown. Elena was taught the unknown words once per week in sessions that lasted approximately 15 minutes. Incremental Rehearsal (IR) is a drill technique that teaches unknown words using a ratio of one unknown word to nine known words. The first unknown word was presented and verbally stated with correct pronunciation. Next, the student was asked to restate the word aloud and then to use that word correctly in a sentence. The student was either praised for the sentence or the researcher provided the definition and used the word correctly in a sentence. The student was then asked to verbally use the word in a different sentence. Lastly, the unknown word was rehearsed with a known sequence of 90 % to 10 % unknown (MacQuarrie, et al. 2002). The unknown word was then treated as the first known word, the ninth known word was removed and a new unknown word was introduced. If the child made an error while rehearsing a word (i.e., did not say the correct pronunciation within 3 seconds), then the researcher orally stated the correct pronunciation and started the rehearsal sequence over again. This procedure was repeated until the student made three errors while rehearsing one new item (Burns, 2001). Therefore, the number of words taught during any one session varied, but ranged from three to six.

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, but baseline data were also collected. While Elena was mastering word list 1, the examiner concurrently collected baseline data on the second and third word lists in a randomly selected order of presentation.

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

Replication was demonstrated across word sets with three word 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 study used a multiple baseline across words sets. There were three sets of words that were taught, which allowed for three demonstrations of effect.

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: