Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 273–288 | Cite as

Student-Level Effects of Increased Teacher-Directed Opportunities to Respond

  • Ashley S. MacSuga-Gage
  • Nicholas A. GageEmail author
Original Paper


Antecedent-based classroom management strategies, including teacher-directed opportunities to respond (TD-OTR), have been identified and studied in the literature, but the link between those practices and student outcomes is still developing. This study describes a within-subject interrupted time-series analysis of the relationship between increased TD-OTRs and student-level behavior and academic outcomes. Results indicate a statistically significant positive relationship between increased TD-OTRs and student academic engagement and disruptive behavior, but not academic achievement based a standardized progress monitoring measure. Limitations and future directions are noted.


Opportunities to respond Professional development Classroom management 


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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Blood, E. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 214–228.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, H. S. (2003). Using “short” interrupted time-series analysis to measure the impacts of whole-school reforms. Evaluation Review, 27, 3–49. doi: 10.1177/0193841X02239017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P., & Jenkins, G. M. (1976). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control (Rev ed.). San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G. E. P., & Pierce, D. A. (1970). Distribution of residual autocorrelation in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1509–1526. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chafouleas, S. M. (2011). Direct behavior rating: A review of the issues and research in its development. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chafouleas, S. M., Kilgus, S. P., Rilley-Tillman, T. C., Jaffery, R., & Harrison, S. (2012). Preliminary evaluation of various training components on accuracy of direct behavior ratings. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 317–334. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2011.11.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Christ, T. J. (2009). Direct behavior rating (DBR): An emerging method for assessing social behavior within a tiered intervention system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 195–200. doi: 10.1177/1534508409340391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Coyne, M. D., & Harn, B. A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33–43. doi: 10.1002/pits.20127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drummond, T. (1994). The Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS). Grants Pass, OR: Josephine County Mental Health Program.Google Scholar
  11. Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meeks, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Johnson, A. H. (2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81, 227–246. doi: 10.1177/0014402914551738.Google Scholar
  12. Ferkis, M. A., Belfiore, P. J., & Skinner, C. H. (1997). The effects of response repetitions on sight word acquisition for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213–230. doi: 10.1177/001440291307900206.Google Scholar
  14. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
  15. Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber, B. R., & Orlando, A. M. (2009). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haydon, T., & Hunter, W. (2011). The effects of two types of teacher questioning on teacher behavior and student performance: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Honaker, J., & King, G. (2010). What to do about missing values in time-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 561–581.
  18. Jelicic, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Use of missing data methods in longitudinal studies: The persistence of bad practices in developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1195–1199. doi: 10.1037/a0015665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical and applied significance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kern, L., & Clemens, N. H. (2007). Antecedent strategies to promote appropriate classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 65–75. doi: 10.1002/pits.20206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambert, M. C., Cartledge, G., Heward, W. L., & Lo, Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding during math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 8, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Casey, A. M., Lambert, W., Wehby, J. H., Weisenbach, J. L., & Phillips, A. (2009). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders: How do they compare? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Harris, P. J., Menzies, H. M., Cox, M., & Lambert, W. (2012). Initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the student risk screening scale for internalizing and externalizing behavior at the elementary level. Behavioral Disorders, 37, 99–122.Google Scholar
  24. MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (in press). Examining the impact of opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children.Google Scholar
  25. McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive environments. Journal of Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0022466910376670.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers, D. M., Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2011). Increasing teachers’ use of praise with a response-to-intervention approach. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  29. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simonsen, B., MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Briere, D. E., Freeman, J., Myers, D., Scott, T., & Sugai, G. (2013). Multi-tiered support framework for teachers’ classroom management practices: Overview and case study of building the triangle for teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. doi: 10.1177/1098300713484062.Google Scholar
  31. Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Richter, M., Johnson, N. W., & Bradley, L. (2006). Assessing antecedent variables: The effects of instructional variables on student outcomes through in-service and peer coaching professional development models. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 665–692.Google Scholar
  32. Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Whittaker, T. A., Richter, M., Johnson, N. W., & Trussell, R. P. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. doi: 10.1177/10634266030110040501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. (1992). systematic screening for behavior disorders: Technical manual. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations