Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Computer-Based Sight-Word Interventions in Students with Intellectual Disability: Self-Determined Versus Fixed Response Intervals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Adapted alternating treatment designs were used to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of two computer-based sight-word-reading interventions among three elementary school students with an intellectual disability. Each intervention provided 30 stimulus–response–stimulus–response learning trials. One intervention included fixed 3-s response intervals. The second intervention had each participant self-determine each response interval. Results suggest that both interventions caused similar increases in sight-word acquisition. Following the experimental phase, each student was given 5 opportunities to choose which intervention they would complete; 100% of the time (i.e., 15/15), students chose the self-determined intervention. Discussion focuses on the importance of student preference and future research on the relationship between allowing students to self-determine response intervals and learning, attention, inappropriate behaviors, on-task behaviors, and preference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. If one intervention had been consistently superior, then the differences in cumulative words acquired (i.e., the difference across the two intervention data series) would have grown larger as the study progressed (see Yaw et al. 2014).

References

  • Baumgart, D., & Van Walleghem, J. (1987). Teaching sight words: A comparison between computer-assisted and teacher-made methods. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 56–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. P., Skinner, C. H., Forbes, B. E., McCurdy, M., Coleman, M. B., Davis, K., et al. (2016). Cumulative instructional time and relative effectiveness conclusions: Extending research on response intervals, learning, and measurement scale. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(10), 58–62.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D., & Xin, Y. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight-word research and its implication for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D. M., Courtade-Little, G., Wakeman, S., & Rickelman, R. J. (2006). From sight words to emerging literacy. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 63–92). Baltimore: Paul Brooks Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. H. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, R. M. (1967). A same-subjects design for simultaneous comparison of three reinforcement contingencies. Behavior Research and Therapy, 5, 237–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazzell, S., Skinner, C., Ciancio, D., Aspiranti, K., Watson, T., Taylor, K., et al. (2017). Evaluating a computer flashcard sight word recognition intervention with self-determined response intervals in elementary students with intellectual disability. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 367–378.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cazzell, S. S., Browarnik, B. L., Skinner, A. L., Cihak, D. F., Skinner, C. H., & Forbes, B. (2016). Extending research on a computer-based flashcard reading intervention to post-secondary students with intellectual disabilities. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 10, 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C. L., & Levinson, T. R. (2002). Effects of within-activity choices on the challenging behavior of children with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, E. J., Neugebauer, S., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2015). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demchak, M. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolch Words—4th Grade. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dentonisd.org/cms/lib/TX21000245/Centricity/Domain/4627/Dolche-Words-4th-Grade.pdf.

  • Dolch Word Lists. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mrsperkins.com/dolch.htm.

  • Dunlap, G., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., et al. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505–518.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlet, C. L., Powell, S. R., Capizzi, A. M., & Seethaler, P. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skills in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus upon applied behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J., Skinner, C. H., & Oliver, R. (2005). The effects of task demands and additive interspersal ratios on fifth-grade students’ mathematics accuracy. School Psychology Review, 34, 543–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, A. N., Hopkins, M. B., Skinner, C. H., & McCane-Bowling, S. (2011). Enhancing sight word reading in second-grade students using a computer-based sight word reading system. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for School, 12, 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M. B., Hilton, A. N., & Skinner, C. H. (2011). Implementation guidelines: How to design a computer-based sight word reading system using Microsoft® PowerPoint®. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 12, 219–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbert, E., Weber, K., & McLaughlin, T. (2000). A comparison of cover, copy, compare and traditional spelling intervention for an adolescent with conduct disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 22, 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, L., Vorndran, C. M., Hilt, A., Ringdahl, J. E., Adelman, B. E., & Dunlap, G. (1998). Choice as an intervention to improve behavior: A review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachappelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M., Haelewyck, M., Courbois, Y., Keith, K., Schalock, R., et al. (2005). The relationship between quality of life and self-determination: An international study. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 740–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., Freeman, J., Lombardi, A., Simonsen, B., & Coyne, M. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but fat too rare. Remedial and Special Education Research, 37, 205–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClusky, A., & Lalkehen, A. (2007). Statistics III: Probability and statistical tests. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain, 7(5), 167–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nist, L., & Joseph, L. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of variations of flash card drills on word recognition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, J. (1986). The effects of teachers’ wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 335–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Interspersing additional briefer, simpler items to enhance mathematics performance on subtests requiring different levels of attention. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 191–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential impact of academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 270–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sindelar, P., Rosenburg, M., & Wilson, R. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H. (2008). Theoretical and applied implications of precisely measuring learning rates. School Psychology Review, 37, 309–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H. (2010). Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates: A commentary on efficiency articles. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 166–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. B., & Watson, T. S. (2002). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 345–356. (Reprinted from Assessment in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 2, 207–220, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., & McCleary, D. F. (2010). Academic engagement, time on task, and AAA responding. In A. Canter, L. Z. Paige, & S. Shaw (Eds.), Helping children at home and school-III: Handouts for families and educators (pp. S3H1–S3H3). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., Poncy, B. C., Cates, G. L., & Skolits, G. J. (2013). Emerging opportunities for school psychologists to enhance our remediation procedure evidence base as we apply response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 272–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of a taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., Shapiro, E. S., Turco, T. L., Cole, C. L., & Brown, D. K. (1992). A comparison of self- and peer-delivered immediate corrective feedback on multiplication performance. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Lee, Y., Williams-Diehm, K., & Shogren, K. A. (2011). A randomized-trial evaluation of the effect of whose future is it anyway? On self-determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaw, J., Skinner, C. H., Maurer, K., Skinner, A. L., Cihak, D., Wilhoit, B., et al. (2014). Measurement scale influences in the evaluation of sight word reading interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 360–379.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yaw, J. S., Skinner, C. H., Orsega, M., Parkhurst, J., Chambers, K., & Booher, J. (2012). Evaluating a computer-based sight word reading intervention in a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 354–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaw, J. S., Skinner, C. H., Parkhurst, J., Taylor, C. M., Booher, J., & Chambers, K. (2011). Extending research on a computer-based sight-word reading intervention to a student with Autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 44–55.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Tennessee, BEC 525, Knoxville, TN, 37996-3452, USA

    Samantha Cazzell, Christopher H. Skinner, Kala Taylor, Merilee McCurdy, Dennis Ciancio, David Cihak, Amy Skinner & Tara Moore

Authors
  1. Samantha Cazzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher H. Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kala Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Merilee McCurdy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dennis Ciancio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David Cihak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Amy Skinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tara Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher H. Skinner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

It was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Experimenter Protocol

Appendix: Experimenter Protocol

1.

______ The experimenter set up a workstation containing a laptop and two chairs

2.

______ The experimenter told the student to sit in his/her chair of choice

3.

______ The researcher went through flashcards targeting treatment words with the student. The student was told to read each word to the best of his/her ability within 3 s. Correct responses were recorded by the experimenter in the datasheet

4.

______Under the 3-s condition, the student was instructed that upon pressing the computer space bar, words would be displayed, and they were to try to “beat the recording” by saying the word before they heard the recording. Students were also instructed to repeat the word after they heard the recording

5.

______ The student then proceeded by pressing the space bar

6.

______ Under the self-determined condition, the student was instructed to attempt to read the words displayed on the computer screen and then press the space bar to hear feedback. After hearing feedback, they were instructed to repeat the word

7.

______ Upon completing both interventions, the student went back to classroom work

8.

______ After completing the intervention with each student, the experimenters compared their data sheets to check for interscorer agreement

9.

______Steps 2–8 were completed for each student

10.

_______________________: Tally each time the student needed a prompt

11.

_______________________: Tally each pause in responding that exceeded 10 s

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cazzell, S., Skinner, C.H., Taylor, K. et al. Comparing Computer-Based Sight-Word Interventions in Students with Intellectual Disability: Self-Determined Versus Fixed Response Intervals. J Behav Educ 29, 469–489 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09335-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09335-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation