Contemporary School Psychology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 220–232 | Cite as

Examining Incremental Rehearsal: Multiplication Fluency with Fifth-Grade Students with Math IEP Goals

  • Samantha M. McVancel
  • Kristen N. Missall
  • Allison L. Bruhn


Reports show that only 40% of 4th-grade students are proficient in math and American students are failing to demonstrate proficiency in key areas of mathematics (National Center for Educational Statistics 2011). Improving students’ fluency of basic math multiplication facts has been recommended as a way to increase math proficiency (Psychology in the Schools, 47:342–353, 2010). Incremental rehearsal is one promising strategy for improving multiplication skills. In this study, three 5th-grade students with disabilities who had Individual Education Plan math goals received one-to-one multiplication instruction using an incremental rehearsal strategy twice per week for 7 weeks. Data indicated immediate and large effects with intervention and growth rates for each student that exceeded expectations. Implications are discussed including the importance of considering both statistically significant and instructionally meaningful results in interpretation.


Mathematics Intervention Special education 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

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

All data were collected according to APA’s ethical guidelines. Data were collected by the first author, who was working in the schools and delivering the intervention. Because of this and because the data represent standard educational practice which IRB does not define as research, informed consent was not collected formally outside the IEP process.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio rest-arch: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 237–249.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as learning disabled: Potential implications for response-to-intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284–292.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42(4), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jiban, C. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.Google Scholar
  9. Burns, M. K., Hodgson, J., Parker, D. C., & Fremont, K. (2011). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of text previewing and pre-teaching keywords as small-group reading comprehension strategies with middle school students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(1), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  14. DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer-assisted tutoring program targeting letter sound expression via incremental rehearsal. School Psychology Review, 43, 210–221.Google Scholar
  15. Eckert, T. L., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1999). Development and refinement of a measure for assessing the acceptability of assessment methods: The assessment rating profile-revised. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, D., Joseph, L. M., Alber-Morgan, S., & Konrad, M. (2014). Efficiency or oral incremental rehearsal versus written incremental rehearsal on students’ rate, retention, and generalization of spelling words. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 8(2), 113–129.Google Scholar
  17. Hosp, J. L., & Ardoin, S. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  19. Iowa Testing Programs. (2012). Iowa assessments. Rolling Meadows: Riverside.Google Scholar
  20. Joseph, L. M. (2006). Incremental rehearsal: A flashcard drill technique for increasing retention of reading words. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 803–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joseph, L., Eveleigh, E., Konrad, M., Neef, N., & Volpe, R. (2012). Comparison of the efficiency of two flashcard drill methods on children’s reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(4), 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Chard, D. J., & Fien, H. (2008). Making connections in mathematics: Conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kratochwill, T. R. (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: An overview. In T. R. Kratochwill& J. R. Levin (Eds.) Single-case research design and analyses: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 1–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 781–792.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma, H. H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30, 598–617.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. MacQuarrie, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584–595.Google Scholar
  29. McDougal, J. L., Graney, S. B., Wright, J. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (2010). RTI in practice: A practical guide to implementing effective evidence-based interventions in your school. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  30. McGraw-Hill Education. (2007). Everyday math. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  31. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Nist, L., & Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–308.Google Scholar
  34. Northwest Evaluation Association. (2014). Measures of academic progress. Portland: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Petersen-Brown, S., & Burns, M. K. (2011). Adding a vocabulary component to incremental rehearsal to enhance retention and generalization. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(3), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Axtell, P. K. (2010). An investigation of detect, practice, and repair to remedy math fact deficits in a group of third grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 342–353.Google Scholar
  37. Rahn, N. L., Wilson, J., Egan, A., Brandes, D., Kunkel, A., Peterson, M., & McComas, J. (2015). Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education & Treatment of Children, 38(1), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Renaissance Learning. (2014). STAR math: Technical manual. Wisconsin Rapids: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Shapiro, E. S. (2011). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  40. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle 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(4), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and rations of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Tom Snyder Productions. (2011). FASTT math. New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  44. United States Department of Education. (1997). Mathematics equal opportunity: White paper prepared for US Secretary of Education Richard Riley. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  45. Varma, S., & Schleisman, K. B. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of incremental rehearsal. School Psychology Review, 43, 222–228.Google Scholar
  46. Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2011). Computer-assisted tutoring: Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 332–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zaslofsky, A. F., Scholin, S. E., Burns, M. K., & Varma, S. (2016). Comparison of opportunities to respond and generation effect as potential causal mechanisms for incremental rehearsal with multiplication combinations. Journal of School Psychology, 55, 71–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Quantitative FoundationsUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations