Opportunities to Respond
Study: Maheady et al. (2002)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants were 21 sixth grade students in a general science classroom in a small, urban, racially and ethnically integrated school system.

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

One student was previously diagnosed with experiencing serious emotional disturbance. No further information was provided.

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:

Alternating treatments design

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

There were two treatment conditions: Response Cards and Numbered Heads Together. In the Response Cards condition, the teacher asked questions of the group and students wrote answers to each question on a dry-erase board. When the teacher gave a signal, students held their boards over their heads. The teacher surveyed responses and commented generally on the number of students with correct responses (e.g., it looks like everyone, some, a few have correct responses) and called on one targeted student to his/her their response. The teacher them provided feedback and students erased their boards for the next response. Students then completed 10-item quizzes independently. In the Numbered Heads Together (NHT) session, students sat in small groups (heterogeneous and formed using procedures outlined in Slavin (1983) with each group having at least on high, average, and low achieving student) of 4 or 5. Each student was numbered from 1-4; groups with 5 students numbered two students as 4s. These teams remained the same throughout the study. The teacher asked a question of the entire class and would cue students to “put your heads together, come up with the best answer you can, and make sure everyone on your team knows the answer.” The teacher then would wait approximately 30 seconds and would say, “All Number ____ (1, 2, 3, or 4s) who know the answer, raise your hands. Students would them complete 10-item quizzes independently.

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]):

Control condition was Whole Group Question & Answer (WGQ&A) condition. The teacher presented content in a didactic manner and directed knowledge-related questions to the whole class. Students raised their hands and the teacher selected students at random. Students took 10-item written quizzes independently at the end of each class where the teacher would read aloud items and students wrote individual responses.

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

Rapid alternation of treatment conditions across participants in a counter-balanced order to minimize the possibility of order effects and multiple treatment interference.

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).

Replications with eight data points in each condition; Some differentiation observed.

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