Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 92–99 | Cite as

Brief Experimental Analysis: A Decision Tool for Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice

Original paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This special issue illustrates how brief experimental analysis (BEA) is gaining recognition as a valuable tool for making treatment decisions about children who are unresponsive to regular classroom instruction. This commentary article provides evidence for why BEA has grown in popularity, briefly summarizes each of the studies included in the series, and discusses issues that are critical to conducting and interpreting data from a BEA. The articles in the issue exemplify how BEA is flexible enough to evaluate diverse intervention options, is time and cost efficient, and is uniquely suited for use in a problem-solving approach to school-based service delivery.

Keywords

Brief experimental analysis Response to intervention Reading Math Writing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response-to-intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.Google Scholar
  3. Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83–94. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly, E. J., III., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.Google Scholar
  5. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exception Children.Google Scholar
  6. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayes, S. C. (1981). Single case experimental design and empirical clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 193–211. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.49.2.193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982/1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209 (reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 1–20).Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 281–288.Google Scholar
  10. Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980). Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2000). Diversifying theory and science: Expanding the boundaries of empirically supported interventions in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luiselli, J. K., Reed, D. D., & Martens, B. K. (in press). Academic problems. In M. Hersen & J. C. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Psychology Competencies (Vol III). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Begeny, J. C., Lewandowski, L. J., DiGennaro, F., Montarello, S., et al. (2007). Effects of a fluency-building program on the reading performance of low-achieving second and third grade students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 39–54.Google Scholar
  14. Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Bradley, T. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (1999). Identifying effective treatments from a brief experimental analysis: Using single-case design elements to aid decision making. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Asmus, J. M., Richman, D., & Stoner, B. (1996). Brief experimental analysis of stimulus prompts for accurate responding on academic tasks in an outpatient clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 397–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reschly, D. (2004). Paradigm shift, outcomes, criteria, and behavioral interventions: Foundations for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 408–416.Google Scholar
  17. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Walker, H. M. (2004). Use of evidence-based interventions in schools: Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. School Psychology Review, 33, 398–407.Google Scholar
  20. Yeaton, W. H., & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologySyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations