Introduction to Problem Analysis to Identify Tier 3 Interventions: Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Problems

  • Melissa Coolong-ChaffinEmail author
  • Jennifer J. McComas


In order to be effective, tier 3 interventions must be matched to the unique characteristics of those learners with the most intensive needs. Brief experimental analysis (BEA) is a data-driven approach that can be used to identify potentially effective interventions in cases where a standard treatment protocol has not been effective. This chapter describes the process for using BEA to select academic interventions, summarizes the literature examining BEA across academic areas, and suggests implications for practice within a comprehensive response to intervention (RTI) framework. Finally, areas for future research are explored.


  1. Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J. III, Marten, B. K., Lin, L.-H., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experiemtnal analysis of reading interventions: Generalizations acorss instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111–114.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, M. K., & Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2006). Response-to-intervention: Role for and effect on school psychology. School Psychology Forum, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37, 126–136.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K., Ganuza, Z., & London, R. M. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: Single-case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 20–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Eckert, T. L. (2003). A comparison of school psychologists’ acceptability, training, and use of norm-referenced, curriculum based, and brief experimental analysis methods to assess reading. School Psychology Review, 32, 272–281.Google Scholar
  7. Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communique, 34(1) 6–7.Google Scholar
  8. Codding, R., Baglici, S., Gottesman, D., Johnson, M., Kert, A., & Lebeouf, P. (2009). Selecting intervention strategies: Using brief experimental analysis for mathematics problems. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 146–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly, E. J., III., & Martens, B. K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 459–469.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Daly, E. J., III., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.Google Scholar
  11. Daly, E. J., III., Martens, B. K., Dool, E. J., & Hintze, J. M. (1998). Using brief functional analysis to select interventions for oral reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly, E. J., III., Murdoch, A., Lillenstein, L., Webber, L., & Lentz, F. E. (2002). An examination of methods for testing treatments: Conducting brief experimental analyses of the effects of instructional components on oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 288–316.Google Scholar
  14. Daly, E. J., III., Persampieri, M. J., McCurdy, M., & Gortmaker, V. J. (2005). Generating reading interventions through experimental analysis of academic skills: Demonstration and empirical evaluation. School Psychology Review, 34, 395–414.Google Scholar
  15. Daly, E. J., III., Garbacz, S. A., Olson, S. C., Persampieri, M., & Ni, H. (2006). Improving oral reading fluency by influencing students’ choice of instructional procedures: An experimental analysis with two students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daly, E. J., III., Bonfiglio, C. M., Mattson, T., Persampieri, M., & Foremann-Yates, K. (2006). Refining the experimental analysis of academic skills deficits: Part I. An investigation of variables that affect generalized oral reading performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 485–497.Google Scholar
  17. Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daisey, D. M., & Scarola, M. D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single-case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daly, E. J., III., & Martens, B. K. (2003). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gortmaker, V. J., Daly, E. J., III, McCurdy, M., Persampieri, M. J., & Hergenrader, M. (2007). Improving reading outcomes for children with learning disabilities: Using brief experimental analysis to develop parent-tutoring interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 203–221.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gray, B. B., Baker, R. D., & Stancyk, S. E. (1969). Performance determined instruction for training in remedial reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 255–263.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, B. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Establishing use of descriptive adjectives in the spontaneous speech of disadvantaged preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 109–120.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, K. M., & Wickstrom, K. F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychology Review, 31, 554–568.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, K. M., Wickstrom, K. F., Noltemeyer, A. L., Brown, S. M., Schuka, J. R., & Therrien, W. (2009). An experimental analysis of reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 35–55.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  26. Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation in applied settings. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malloy, K. J., Gilbertson, D., & Maxfield, J. (2007). Use of brief experimental analysis for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 36, 291–310.Google Scholar
  28. McComas, J. J. (1994). Instructional strategy assessment: Structural analyses of academic performance. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  29. McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., & Cooper, L. J. (1996). Experimental analysis of academic performance in a classroom setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. McComas, J. J., Wagner, D., Coolong-Chaffin, M., Holton, E., McDonnell, M., & Monn, E. (2009). Prescriptive analysis: Further individualization of hypothesis testing in brief experimental analysis of reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Evaluation, 18, 56–70.Google Scholar
  32. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2013). Accessed Nov 2013.
  33. Noell, G. H., Gansle, K. A., Witt, J. C., Freeland, J. T., & LaFleur, L. H., et al. (1998). Effects of contingent reward and instruction on oral reading performance at differing levels of passage difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 659–663.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Noell, G. H., Freeland, J. T., Witt. J. C., & Gansle, K. A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 509–522.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker, D. C., Dickey, B. M., Burns, M. K., & McMaster, K. L. (2012). An application of brief experimental analysis with early writing. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Persampieri, M., Gortmaker, V., Daly, E. J., III, Sheridan, S. M, & McCurdy, M. (2006). Promoting parent use of empirically supported interventions: Two experimental investigations of child outcomes. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petursdottir, A.-L., McMaster, K., McComas, J. J., Bradfield, T., Braganza, V., Koch-McDonald, J., Rodriguez, R., & Scharf, H. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of early reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 215–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tilly, W., & David, III. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda: The National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  40. VanAuken, T., Chafouleas, S. M., Bradley, T. A., & Martens, B. K. (2002). Using brief experimental analysis to select oral reading interventions: An investigation of treatment utility. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. VanDerHeyden A. M., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Performance indicators in math: Implications for brief experimental analysis of academic performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagner, D., McComas, J. J., Bollman, K., & Holton, E. (2006). The use of functional analysis of academic response to intervention for oral reading. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitlock, C. (1966). Note on reading acquisition: An extension of laboratory principles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 83–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilbur, A., & Cushman, T. P. (2006). Selecting effective academic interventions: An example using brief experimental analysis for oral reading. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WisconsinEau ClaireUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations