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

Summary

Cover Copy Compare is a general strategy for building fluency with math facts or other math skills (e.g., numeral identification). Cover Copy Compare is also used in spelling and vocabulary for memorization. In terms of math, a student (a) looks at a correctly-answered problem, (b) covers the problems with a card or bookmark, (c) copies the entire problem, and (d) uncovers the original problem and compares the written work to the original (Konrad & Joseph, 2013). A typical Cover Copy Compare worksheet involves 8-10 problems that are related (e.g., all division facts with 7 as the divisor). Students work individually on Cover Copy Compare, so teachers can use the practice in whole-class, small-group, or individual settings. Cover Copy Compare worksheets can be created by any teachers or any math skill that requires building fluency. There is no formal program to purchase. Some versions use Copy Cover Compare where the student (a) copies a correctly-answered problem, (b) covers both, (c) writes from memory the problem, and (d) compares the version from memory to the other two problems.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Students with intellectual disabilities
  • Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Computation
  • Whole number arithmetic
  • Fractions, decimals (rational number)
Where to Obtain:
Initial Cost:
Free
Replacement Cost:
Free

Cover Copy Compare is not a published program. Cover Copy Compare is a strategy for increasing math fluency. Teachers create their own Cover Copy Compare worksheets based on individual student needs. For implementation, teachers must be familiar with the Cover Copy Compare procedure and teach the procedure to students.

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

Teachers need to become familiar with the Cover Copy Compare strategy and create worksheets for student use.


N/A

Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
5
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
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:

Cover Copy Compare is a general strategy for building fluency with math facts or other math skills (e.g., numeral identification). Cover Copy Compare is also used in spelling and vocabulary for memorization. In terms of math, a student (a) looks at a correctly-answered problem, (b) covers the problems with a card or bookmark, (c) copies the entire problem, and (d) uncovers the original problem and compares the written work to the original (Konrad & Joseph, 2013). A typical Cover Copy Compare worksheet involves 8-10 problems that are related (e.g., all division facts with 7 as the divisor). Students work individually on Cover Copy Compare, so teachers can use the practice in whole-class, small-group, or individual settings. Cover Copy Compare worksheets can be created by any teachers or any math skill that requires building fluency. There is no formal program to purchase. Some versions use Copy Cover Compare where the student (a) copies a correctly-answered problem, (b) covers both, (c) writes from memory the problem, and (d) compares the version from memory to the other two problems.

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

not selected Age 0-3
not 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
selected Ninth grade
selected Tenth grade
selected Eleventh grade
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
selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
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
not 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
not 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
selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
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
Phone Number
Website

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)

Cover Copy Compare is not a published program. Cover Copy Compare is a strategy for increasing math fluency. Teachers create their own Cover Copy Compare worksheets based on individual student needs. For implementation, teachers must be familiar with the Cover Copy Compare procedure and teach the procedure to students.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
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
5
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
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:

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:
Teachers need to become familiar with the Cover Copy Compare strategy and create worksheets for student use.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
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
selected Other

If other, please describe:

Any school staff member could monitor Cover Copy Compare.
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?
No

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
N/A

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.

Becker, A., McLaughlin, T., Weber, K. P., & Gower, J. (2009). The effects of copy, cover and compare with and without additional error drill on multiplication fact fluency and accuracy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7, 747-760.

Cieslar, W., McLaughlin, T. F., & Derby, K. M. (2008). Effects of the copy, cover, and compare procedure on the math and spelling performance of a high school student with behavioral disorder: A case report. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52, 45-52. doi:10.3200/PSFL.52.4.45-52

Codding, R. S., Chan-Iannetta, L., Palmer, M., & Lukito, G. (2009). Examining a classwide application ov cover-copy-compare with and without goal setting to enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 173-185. doi:10.1037/a0017192

Codding, R. S., Eckert, T. L., Fanning, E., Shiyko, M., & Solomon, E. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: The effects of cover-copy-compare alone and combined with performance feedback on digits correct and incorrect. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 125-141. doi:10/1007/s10864-006-9006-x

Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603-617. doi:10.1016.j.jsp.2007.06.005

Cressey, J., & Ezbicki, K. (2008). Improving automaticity with basic addition facts: Do taped problems work faster than cover, copy, compare? NERA Conference Proceedings, Paper 12.

Grafman, J. M., & Cates, G. L. (2010). The differential effects of two self-managed math instruction procedures: Cover, copy, and compare versus copy, cover, and compare. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 165-165. doi:10.1002/pits.20459

Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2010). The efficacy of two mathematics interventions for enhancing fluency with elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 273-288. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9114-5

Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., Poncy, B., Adcock, W., & Luna, E. (2010). Efficient class-wide remediation: Using technology to identify idiosyncratic math facts for additional automaticity drills. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Training, 6(2), 111-123.    

Poff, B., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, K. M., & King, K. (2012). The effects of cover, copy, and compare with free time in math for elementary students with severe behavior disorders. Academic Research International, 2(2), 217-228.

Poncy, B. C., McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2010). A comparison of behavioral and constructivist interventions for increasing math-fact fluency in a second-grade classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 917-930. Doi:10.1002/pits.20514

Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 27-37. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9025-7

Poncy, B. S., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A comparison of class-wide taped problem and cover, copy, and compare for enhancing mathematics fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 744-755. doi:10/1002/pits.21631

Study Information

Study Citations

Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H. & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16() 27-37.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The teacher requested services from the school psychologist to increase accuracy and fluency in basic addition facts.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Student had a full-scale IQ of 44 with a diagnosis of moderate mental retardation.

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?
%

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:
This was an adapted alternating treatments design and a multiple-probe design to investigate two treatments while implementing a control condition.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
With Cover Copy Compare, the participated (a) read a printed addition fact, (b) covered the problem and answer, (c) wrote the problem and answer, (d) checked for accuracy, and (e) verbalized the correct problem and answer 3 times. Participant did this with 4 problems. Interventionist helped participant correct mistakes when mistakes were made.

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]):
With Taped Problems, the participant was given a practice sheet with 24 problems. An audio tape was made that corresponded with the problems on the worksheet. On the tape, a problem was read with a 4 second delay between the end of a problem begin read and the answer being stated. The 4 second delay was when the participant was supposed to write the answer.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
Cover Copy Compare and Taped Problems were used in every session.

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).
Two competing treatments used every session and compared to answers under control conditions.

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

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.)?

Condition A
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
7.00
Condition B
Weeks
Sessions per week
Duration of sessions in minutes
5.00
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?
Special education teacher; school psychologist

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Self-recording against a 10-step checklist

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Records indicated that all steps were correctly completed in the appropriate sequence.

Was the fidelity measure also used in baseline or comparison conditions?
NR

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Empty 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:

Results Half 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):

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.
Once intervention began, participant accuracy increased to 100% with Taped Problems about 89-100% with Cover Copy Compare. Performance on the control problems remained low (27-44%). Participant digits correct per min increased the same amount with Taped Problems and Cover Copy Compare, with Cover Copy Compare giving the participant a slight advantage. Both Taped Problems and Cover Copy Compare digits correct per min were much higher than on the control problems.

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?
6
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Codding, R. S., Chan-lannetta, L., Palmer, M., & Lukito, G. (2009). Examining a Class-Wide Application of Cover-Copy-Compare with and without Goal Setting to Enhance Mathematics Fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 173-185. doi:10.1037/a0017192 

Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing Mathematics Interventions: Does Initial Level of Fluency Predict Intervention Effectiveness? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603-617. doi:10.1016.j.jsp.2007.06.005

Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2010). The Efficacy of Two Mathematics Interventions for Enhancing Fluency with Elementary Students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 273-288. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9114-5

Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., Poncy, B., Adcock, W., & Luna, E. (2010). Efficient Class-Wide Remediation: Using Technology to Identify Idiosyncratic Math Facts for Additional Automaticity Drills. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Training, 6(2), 111-123.

Poncy, B. C., McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2010). A Comparison of Behavioral and Constructivist Interventions for Increasing Math-Fact Fluency in a Second-Grade Classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 917-930. doi:10.1002/pits.20514

Poncy, B. S., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A Comparison of Class-Wide Taped Problem and Cover, Copy, and Compare for Enhancing Mathematics Fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 744-755. doi:10/1002/pits.21631

Disclaimer

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.