Incremental Rehearsal
Study: Peterson et al. (2014)

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 There is an unpublished document (Tucker, 1988) that is available for free from the author.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

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(1) 97-107.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
The students attending kindergarten in a public elementary school in Minneapolis and each was previously identified by the school district as an English language learner (ELL) that received ELL services prior to the study. In addition, district assessments indicated that each participant scored between levels of “entering” and “beginning” English proficiency.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):
Participants were chosen based on Letter–Sound Fluency scores of 14 or below on the January administration of the Minneapolis Kindergarten Assessment, which is the district benchmark for students not projected to meet the proficiency standard on the state high-stake assessment in third grade. In addition, all students scored a 0 on a baseline measure of letter sound fluency.

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 Full Bobble

Please describe the study design:
A multiple-baseline design across sets of letter sounds was used to evaluate the effect of IR on the primary dependent variable, letter–sound expression. At the beginning of the study, the interventionist tested participant letter–sound expression on all three letter–sound sets (i.e., Set A, Set B, and Set C) for four consecutive sessions until a stable baseline was established. When a stable baseline was established, intervention was implemented with the first set of letter sounds (i.e., Set A). A stable baseline was not a criterion for introducing subsequent letter–sound sets. Intervention on the first set continued until the participant mastered all four unknown sounds (i.e., labeled correctly at the beginning of at least one session with no subsequent errors in following sessions). Intervention was then discontinued for the first letter–sound set, and those sounds were randomly used as knowns with subsequent sets to promote maintenance of the sounds. The second and third letter–sound sets were introduced once mastery was attained in each previous set. Data continued to be collected on mastered letter–sound sets to document maintenance.

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:
One-on-one intervention with participants took place at tables in the hallway outside of the participants' classrooms for 10 to 15 min approximately three times per week for nine weeks or until all letter–sound sets were mastered. Participants were taken out of their classrooms during times that were previously agreed upon by the teacher and interventionist so as not to interfere with core curriculum. During each intervention session, the interventionist used a script to standardize intervention procedure across participants. During each session, two unknown sounds were practiced within two incremental rehearsal sequences. In the first sequence, the first unknown sound was modeled by the interventionist (e.g., “This is the letter d. It makes the /d/ sound.”). The interventionist then asked the participant to say the sound (e.g., “Say /d/.”), confirmed a correct response (e.g., “Good, /d/.”), or corrected an incorrect response (e.g., “This sound is /d/. What sound?”). The interventionist then provided a model of a word using the sound (e.g., “/d/ is the first sound in the word dog.” or “/x/ is the last sound of the word fox.”). Next, the interventionist again showed the first unknown and asked the participant to name the sound (i.e., “What sound?”). After acknowledging a correct response or correcting an incorrect response, the unknown was shown again, followed by the first known (e.g., /s/). The unknown (e.g., /d/) was then shown again, followed by the first and second knowns (e.g., /s/, /m/). This procedure continued until all six knowns were presented, thus giving the participant seven opportunities to name the unknown sound as it was interspersed with the known sounds. If the participant made fewer than three errors during the first sequence, a second sequence was conducted. At the beginning of the second incremental rehearsal sequence, one known sound was removed from the set and the second unknown was inserted. The standard sequence described in this section was followed again with the second unknown. This repeated pattern allowed six additional opportunities for practicing the first unknown sound that was inserted in the set for the second incremental rehearsal sequence and seven opportunities to practice the second unknown sound. If a participant made an error during the session or did not respond within 3 s, a standard error correction procedure was used (e.g., “That sound is /d/. What sound?”). The intervention session was terminated if a participant made three errors within the session. At the end of the session, the interventionist shuffled all cards, with the two unknowns separated by at least one card, and presented each card to the participant for review. The same error correction procedures were used during the review.

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]):
Baseline consisted of conducting letter–sound expression assessments on four separate days prior to beginning intervention on Set A. Following initial baseline assessment, Sets B and C were assessed weekly until intervention was initiated for each set.

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)
Replication was demonstrated across letter sets for each participant. All three participants received three treatment conditions.

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 letter set design with three letter sets for each of the three participants.

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
9.00
Sessions per week
3.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
12.50
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 interventionists were 6 students completing a Ph.D. in special education. Prior to implementation of the intervention, the graduate students participated in a 90-min training in assessment administration and intervention procedures. This training consisted of practice conducting assessments and implementing the intervention with typically developing children from a daycare facility. Parental consent was provided for each of the children participating in the intervention training. During this training, interobserver agreement (IOA) and fidelity were assessed for each graduate student. IOA was 100% for all assessments, and fidelity was above 90% for all graduate students so no further trainings were deemed necessary.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Procedural fidelity was assessed by the graduate students using a checklist modeled after the intervention script and consisting of the intervention steps. Categories assessed included set assessment, modeling of the new sounds, rehearsal sequence, error correction, and intervention termination. The observer rated each item as yes, no, or not applicable. Fidelity was calculated by dividing the number of correctly implemented components by the total components implemented. Fidelity was assessed during 27% of random intervention sessions across students (N = 13).

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Treatment fidelity ranged from 92% to 100% (M = 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:
Letter-sound expression was used to determine instructional stimuli and the data were not reported. The Minneapolis Kindergarten Assessment was used as a screener.

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):
Data were visually analyzed and with percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND), which was converted to phi.

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.
PAND across letter–sound sets was 98% (phi = .92) for Hector, 100% for Ania (phi = 1.0), and 95% (phi = .77) for Hai Yen. There was an immediate change in level for all three students for all three letter sets, with the exception of one data point for Hector. The trend changed from 0 to slight positive for all three students for all three data sets to a strongly positive trend. Hai Yen had a positive trend for the baseline data with Set C, but the trend increased sharply after starting the intervention. There was little variability for all of the baseline data sets, There was some variability for intervention data sets, but all intervention data ended with at least three consecutive data points at the highest possible score. There was a clear pattern across all three data sets for all three students.

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 Quarterly22, 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.

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.