Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 217–229 | Cite as

Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Design Research on Self-Regulatory Interventions for Academic Performance

  • Valerie PerryEmail author
  • Loren Albeg
  • Catherine Tung
Original Paper


The current study examined the effects of self-regulatory interventions on reading, writing, and math by conducting a meta-analysis of single-case design research. Self-regulatory interventions have promise as an effective approach that is both minimally invasive and involves minimal resources. Effects of the interventions were analyzed by academic subject, grade, educational placement, and the number of sessions. Results indicated that self-regulatory strategies showed promise in addressing academic issues in the areas of reading, writing, and math regardless of age, grade, educational placement, and intervention length.


Self-regulation Self-regulatory Meta-analysis Academic intervention 


  1. Citations with asterisks were included in the meta-analysis.Google Scholar
  2. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2008). Applied behavioral analysis for teachers. Columbus, OH: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., I. I. I., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004). Empirically-based special service decisions from increasing and decreasing intensity single case designs. Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. *Cameron, M. I., & Robinson, V. M. (1980). Effects of cognitive training on academic and on-task behavior of hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 405–419.Google Scholar
  6. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman-Young, S., Spanjers, D. M., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2069–2085). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dunlap, L. K., & Dunlap, G. (1989). A self-monitoring package for teaching subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 22, 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia-Sanchez, J. N., & Fidalgo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(3), 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gettinger, M., & Ball, C. (2008). Best practices in increasing academic engaged time. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2069–2085). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  11. *Hagaman, J., & Reid, R. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234.Google Scholar
  12. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic 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. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  13. Harvey, V. S., & Chickie-Wolfe, L. A. (2008). Best practices in teaching study skills. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2069–2085). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, C. A., Ruhl, K. L., & Misra, A. (1989). Self-management with behaviorally disordered students in school settings: A promise unfulfilled? Behavioral Disorders, 14, 250–262.Google Scholar
  15. Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Childs, K. E., & Clarke, S. (1994). Use of a class wide self-management program to improve the behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 17, 445–458.Google Scholar
  17. Lane, K. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. (2004). School-based interventions. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. *Lane, K., Harris, K., Graham, S., Weisenbach, J., Brindle, M., & Morphy, P. (2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 234–253.Google Scholar
  19. *Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 66–78.Google Scholar
  20. *Lienemann, T., & Reid, R. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to improve expository writing with students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 74, 471–486.Google Scholar
  21. *Martin, K. F., & Manno, C. (1995). Use of a check-off system to improve middle school students’ story compositions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 139–149.Google Scholar
  22. *Mason, L., & Shriner, J. (2008). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for writing an opinion essay: Effects for six students with emotional/behavior disorders. Reading and Writing, 21, 71–93.Google Scholar
  23. *Mason, L., Snyder, K., & Sukhran, D. (2006). TWA + PLANS strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.Google Scholar
  24. Parker, R. I., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Useful effect size interpretations for single case research. Behavior Therapy, 38, 95–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rathvon, N. (2008). Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for improving student outcomes. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. *Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for written expression with students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 73, 53–68.Google Scholar
  28. Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2009). A meta-analysis of single-subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2006). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Saddler, B. (2006). Increasing story-writing ability through self-regulated strategy development: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 291–305.Google Scholar
  32. *Saddler, B., & Asaro, K. (2007). Increasing story quality through planning and revising: Effects on young writers with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 223–234.Google Scholar
  33. *Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12, 13–17.Google Scholar
  34. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. *Shimabukuro, S. M., Prater, M. A, Jenkins, A., & Edelen-Smith, P. (1999). The effects of self-monitoring of academic performance on students with learning disabilities and ADD/ADHD. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 397–414.Google Scholar
  36. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Swanson, H. L. (2003). Age related differences in learning disabled and skilled readers’ working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(1), 1–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2007). The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(4), 249–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 13, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. *Wolfe, L., Heron, T., & Goddard, Y. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior and written language performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 49–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations