Advertisement

Taped Problems Intervention Components: A Meta-Analysis

  • Kathleen B. Aspiranti
  • Elizabeth McCallum
  • Ara J. Schmitt
Article

Abstract

The taped problems (TP) intervention is a math fact fluency intervention designed to produce high rates of active and accurate academic responding. Multiple single-case design studies have examined the use of TP across grades of students, implementation group sizes, intervention settings, target math facts, total intervention time, application of reinforcement procedures, and inclusion of post-TP exercises as part of the intervention. This meta-analysis examines which TP components are related to greatest increases in math fact fluency. A total of 14 studies with 158 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results support that TP is an effective intervention to increase math fact fluency, and significant moderators of TP effectiveness include intervention group size, setting, time in seconds in intervention, and the inclusion of reinforcement. Discussion focuses on implications of these findings for research and practice.

Keywords

Taped problems Meta-analysis Intervention Mathematics Single-case design 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Kathleen B. Aspiranti declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Elizabeth McCallum declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ara J. Schmitt declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

*Denotes article included in meta-analysis

  1. *Aspiranti, K. B., Skinner, C. H., McCleary, D. F., & Cihak, D. F. (2011). Using taped-problems and rewards to increase addition-fact fluency in a first grade general education classroom. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 25–33.Google Scholar
  2. *Bliss, S. L., Skinner, C. H., McCallum, E., Saecker, L. B., Rowland-Bryant, E., & Brown, K. S. (2010). A comparison of taped problems with and without a brief post-treatment assessment on multiplication fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 156–168.Google Scholar
  3. Bowman-Perrott, L., Burke, M. D., Zaini, S., Zhang, N., & Vannest, K. (2016). Promoting positive behavior using the Good Behavior Game: a meta-analysis of single-case research. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruni, T. P., Drevon, D., Hixon, M., Wyse, R., Corcoran, S., & Fursa, S. (2017). The effect of functional behavior assessment on school-based interventions: a meta-analysis of single-case research. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, M. D., Boon, R. T., Hatton, H., & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2015). Reading interventions for middle and secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders: a quantitative review of single-case studies. Behavior Modification, 39, 43–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of opportunities to respond within a drill model when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. *Carroll, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., McCallum, E., & Woodland, S. (2006). Evaluating and comparing responsiveness to two interventions designed to enhance math-fact fluency. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
  8. Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between math anxiety and math performance. An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowker, A. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 324–332.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Drevon, D., Fursa, S. R., & Malcolm, A. L. (2017). Intercoder reliability and validity of WebPlotDigitizer in extracting graphed data. Behavior Modification, 41, 323–339.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Duhon, G. J., Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Freeland, J. T., Dufrene, B. A., & Gilbertson, D. N. (2004). Identifying academic skill and performance deficits: the experimental analysis of brief assessments of academic skills. School Psychology Review, 33, 429–443.Google Scholar
  12. Duhon, G. J., House, S., Hastings, K., Poncy, B., & Solomon, B. (2015). Adding immediate feedback to explicit timing: an option for enhancing treatment intensity to improve mathematics fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagne, R. M. (1982). Some issues in psychology of mathematics instruction. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafman, J. M., & Cates, G. L. (2010). The differential effects of two self-managed math instruction procedures: cover, copy, and compare versus copy, cover, and compare. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 153–165.Google Scholar
  15. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Developing fluency. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1, 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., & Van Loan, C. (2009). Using opportunities to respond in a general education classroom: a case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleinert, W. L., Codding, R. S., Minami, T., & Gould, K. (2017). Meta-analysis of the taped problems intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2012). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2011). The taped problems intervention: increasing the math fact fluency of a student with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26, 276–284.Google Scholar
  20. *McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 129–147.Google Scholar
  21. *McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., & Saecker, L. (2006). The taped-problems intervention: increasing multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, classwide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419–434.Google Scholar
  22. *McCleary, D. F., Aspiranti, K. B., Skinner, C. H., Foster, L. N., Luna, E., Murray, K., …, Woody, A. (2011). Enhancing math-fact fluency via taped problems in intact second- and fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 12, 179–201.Google Scholar
  23. *Miller, L. C., Skinner, C. H., Gibby, L., Galyon, C. E., & Meadows-Allen, S. (2011). Evaluating generalization of addition-fact fluency using the taped-problems procedure in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 203–220.Google Scholar
  24. *Mong, M. D., & Mong, K. W. (2012). The utility of brief experimental analysis and extended intervention analysis in selecting effective mathematics interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 99–118.Google Scholar
  25. National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2015). The nation’s report card: math highlights 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  26. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: the final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2014). Non-overlap analysis for single case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), School psychology series. Single-case intervention research: methodological and statistical advances (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  31. Parkhurst, J., Skinner, C. H., Yaw, J., Poncy, B., Adcock, W., & Luna, E. (2010). Efficient class-wide remediation: using technology to identify idiosyncratic math facts for additional automaticity drills. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6, 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellegrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (1987). Information processing and elementary mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 23–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. *Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and fluency: cover, copy and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 27–37.Google Scholar
  34. *Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & McCallum, E. (2012). A comparison of class-wide taped problems and Cover, Copy, and Compare for enhancing mathematic fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 744–755.Google Scholar
  35. *Poncy, B. C., Jaspers, K. E., Hansmann, P. R., Bui, L., & Matthew, W. B. (2015). A comparison of taped-problem interventions to increase math fact fluency: does the length of time delay affect student learning rates? Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 63–82.Google Scholar
  36. Rohatgi, A. (2015). WebPlotDigitizer (version 4.1) [computer software]. Retrieved from https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/.
  37. Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: direct assessment and intervention fourth edition. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sharp, S. R., & Skinner, C. H. (2004). Using interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected criteria and paired reading to enhance class-wide reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.Google Scholar
  41. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. VanDerHeyden, A. (2014). Best practices in cant’ do/won’t do assessments. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: data-based and collaborative decision making (6th ed., pp. 305–316). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  44. Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., & Gonen, O. (2011). Single case research: web based calculators for SCR analysis. (Version 1.0) [web-based application].Google Scholar
  45. *Windingstad, S., Skinner, C. H., Rowland, E., Cardin, E., & Fearrington, J. Y. (2009). Extending research on a math fluency building intervention: applying taped problems in a second-grade classroom. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 364–381.Google Scholar
  46. Wolfe, K., Pyel, D., Charlton, C. T., Sabey, C. V., Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2016). A systematic review of the empirical support for check-in check-out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18, 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ysseldyke, J., Thill, T., Pohl, J., & Bolt, D. (2005). Using MathFacts in a flash to enhance computational fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 6, 59–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen B. Aspiranti
    • 1
  • Elizabeth McCallum
    • 2
  • Ara J. Schmitt
    • 2
  1. 1.Counseling, School Psychology, and Educational LeadershipYoungstown State UniversityYoungstownUSA
  2. 2.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations