Opportunities to Respond
Study: Narayan et al. (1990)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants were six selected students selected by the teacher from among twenty students in a regular fourth grade classroom in an urban elementary school. In the teacher’s judgment, these six represented the range of overall skills in her class.

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

Not described.

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?

%

Please describe the study design:

An ABAB reveal design was implemented.

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

Each session was comprised of 20 min of instruction followed by the quiz. The teacher presented information for about 10 min then orally questioned students after each fact or concept had been presented. Each student was provided with a white, laminated board. After asking a question, the teacher cued (e.g. “write”). After counting to herself to five, the teacher asked students to hold up their cards above their heads so everyone could see. She scanned and provided feedback and then said, “Put down your cards and erase your answers.” Teacher praise and feedback were given after each response. If everyone in the class gave the correct answer, the teacher gave feedback to the whole class (e.g. “Good, class, the capital of Texas is Austin!”). If some were in correct, the teacher could have said, “I see that some of you have Austin as the answer. That is correct.” If no student had the correct answer, the teacher might say, “I see no one has the correct answer. The right answer is Austin.”

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]):

Each session was comprised of 20 min of instruction followed by the quiz. The teacher presented information for about 10 min then orally questioned students after each fact or concept had been presented. In the hand-raising/control condition, the teacher waited 3 s after asking a question and before calling upon a student with a raised hand. The teacher gave verbal praise for correct answers (e.g. Great, Bobby!) and corrective feedback for incorrect answers (e.g. “No, Bobby, the capital is Austin.”). Feedback statements were controlled so all students always heard the correct answer twice.

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

A reversal across participants was implemented.

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 design contains three demonstrations across the six participants (ABAB).

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

N/A

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: