Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 70–81 | Cite as

Differential Effects of Two Spelling Procedures on Acquisition, Maintenance and Adaption to Reading

  • Gary L CatesEmail author
  • Megan Dunne
  • Karyn N Erkfritz
  • Aaron Kivisto
  • Nicole Lee
  • Jennifer Wierzbicki
Original Paper


An alternating treatments design was used to assess the effects of a constant time delay (CTD) procedure and a cover-copy-compare (CCC) procedure on three students’ acquisition, subsequent maintenance, and adaptation (i.e., application) of acquired spelling words to reading passages. Students were randomly presented two trials of word lists from their respective curriculum under each condition once daily. Results suggest that both procedures were effective for helping students efficiently acquire spelling words, but the CCC condition resulted in more words learned for all participants, although less pronounced when instructional time was considered. However, the CTD procedure resulted in substantially higher levels of maintenance for Jeremy and Leon, with no significant difference between the two procedures for the Anthony. Adaptation of acquired spelling words to reading was about equal under both conditions for Anthony and Leon, while Jeremy showed higher levels of performance in the CTD procedure. Discussion focuses on discrepant results, matching instructional procedures to specific learning concerns, and directions for future research.


Spelling intervention Constant time delay Cover copy compare Adaptation Maintenance 


  1. Arra, C. T., & Aaron, P. G. (2001). Effects of psycholinguistic instruction on spelling performance. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., Meadows, T. J., Weaver, A., & Jackson, B. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601–616.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman-Martin, M. B., Heller, K. W. (2004). Using a modified constant prompt-delay procedure to teach spelling to students with physical disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 469–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gettinger, M. (1994). Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling performance of second-grade boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gettinger, M. (1985). Effects of teacher-directed versus student-directed instruction and cues versus no cues for improving spelling performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 167–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Graham, S., & Freeman, S. (1986). Strategy training and teacher-vs. Student-controlled study conditions: Effects on LD students’ spelling performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of students with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional technology: 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, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  9. Hughs, T. A., Fredrick, L. D., & Keel, M. C. (2002). Learning to effectively implement constant time delay procedures to teach spelling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbert, E. R., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2000). A comparison of Copy, Cover, and compare and a traditiaonl spelling intervention for an adolescent with conduct disorder. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 22, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kapadia, E. S., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (1988). Effects of teacher-and self-adminstered procedures on spelling performance of learning-handicapped children. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McGuffin, M. E., Martz, S. A., & Heron, T. E. (1997). The effects of self-correction versus traditional spelling on the spelling performance and maintenance of third grade students, 7, 463–476.Google Scholar
  13. McGuigan, C. A. (1975). The Add-a-word spelling program (Working paper no. 53). Experimental Education Unit. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  14. McNeish, J., Heron, T. E., & Okyere, B. (1992). Effects of self-correction on the spelling performance of junior high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor of first grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 84, 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore, W. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R. (1998). When to self-correct?: A comparison of two procedures on spelling performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy, J. F., Hern, C. L., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1990). The effects of the copy, cover, compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy with learning disabled students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K.E. (2007, this issue). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, Copy, and Compare versus Taped Problems. Journal of Behavioral Education.Google Scholar
  19. Ross, A. H., & Stevens, K. B. (2003). Teaching spelling of social studies content vocabulary prior to using the vocabulary in inclusive learning environments: An examination of constant time delay, observational learning, and instructive feedback. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, T. J., Dittmer, K. I., & Skinner, C. H. (2002). Enhancing science performance in students with learning disabilities using cover, copy and compare: A student shows the way. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (2002). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, C. H., McLaughlin, T. F., & Logan, P. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Pierce, N. (1992). Cover, copy, and compare: Increasing geography accuracy in students with behavior disorders. School Psychology Review, 21, 73–81.Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: A method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 412–420.Google Scholar
  25. Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Telescan, B. L., Slaton, D. B., & Stevens, K. B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching students with learning disabilitites to deliver time delay instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of constant time delay, practice in writing or spelling and reinforcement on sight word recognition in a small group. Journal of Special Education, 24, 101-116.Google Scholar
  28. Wirtz, C. L., Garnder, R., Weber, K., & Bullara, D. (1996). Using self-correction to improve the spelling performance of low-achieving third graders. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary L Cates
    • 1
    Email author
  • Megan Dunne
    • 1
  • Karyn N Erkfritz
    • 1
  • Aaron Kivisto
    • 1
  • Nicole Lee
    • 1
  • Jennifer Wierzbicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Illinois State UniversityPsychology DepartmentNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations