An Evaluation of Strategic Incremental Rehearsal on Sight Word Acquisition among Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading
Saved in:
| Title: | An Evaluation of Strategic Incremental Rehearsal on Sight Word Acquisition among Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Phipps, Laura (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Behavioral Education. Jun 2022 31(2):281-297. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Grade 3 Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Sight Method, Grade 3, Special Education, Reading Difficulties, Learning Disabilities, Instructional Materials, Sight Vocabulary, Visual Stimuli |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10864-020-09398-y |
| ISSN: | 1053-0819 |
| Abstract: | The Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR) intervention, a modified version of Incremental Rehearsal, is an efficient flashcard procedure that has demonstrated effectiveness on sight word acquisition for children who exhibit reading difficulties. However, to date, the procedure has not been evaluated with children identified with a reading disability who have a history of receiving special education services. This study uses a multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of SIR with a modified criterion for removal on sight word reading with three third-grade participants receiving special education services for a specific learning disability in reading. Results indicated sight word reading increased for all 3 participants at the onset of intervention compared to baseline. The total intervention time for each participant ranged from 16 to 48 min. All 3 participants correctly read a minimum of 21 out of 25 targeted words at a 5-week maintenance check. The results indicated that SIR with a modified criterion of removal is a potentially effective and efficient intervention for sight word reading for participants with specific learning disabilities in reading. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1338383 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFiBnVtuwr7PjNtAM5oCZgzAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFJdFJvF5WTqNQVCZgIBEICBm5EzFuykh2Tdpj154Rw7IedWZuMwDqzRfnnhRckhNmLKnIH9hclnMhy1lS1UYoZTxR1tq46oVSUlCUJhIBica0eDL-8-WZHOmVSmAw3-GOHfALM31fDZ5Vu0LlZkWuEXinzegxRztKbT4OFKu-2iqjBU6lWQWErGYQPwmZy2eTlnOZd-LeplLK_HSAnzx0rUykJ-wBkIUkW3Ydo2 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0157411771;41z01jun.22;2022Jun15.06:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0157411771-1">An Evaluation of Strategic Incremental Rehearsal on Sight Word Acquisition Among Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading </title> <p>The Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR) intervention, a modified version of Incremental Rehearsal, is an efficient flashcard procedure that has demonstrated effectiveness on sight word acquisition for children who exhibit reading difficulties. However, to date, the procedure has not been evaluated with children identified with a reading disability who have a history of receiving special education services. This study uses a multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of SIR with a modified criterion for removal on sight word reading with three third-grade participants receiving special education services for a specific learning disability in reading. Results indicated sight word reading increased for all 3 participants at the onset of intervention compared to baseline. The total intervention time for each participant ranged from 16 to 48 min. All 3 participants correctly read a minimum of 21 out of 25 targeted words at a 5-week maintenance check. The results indicated that SIR with a modified criterion of removal is a potentially effective and efficient intervention for sight word reading for participants with specific learning disabilities in reading.</p> <p>Keywords: Specific learning disability; Reading disability; Sight words; Strategic incremental rehearsal; Multiple baseline; Efficiency</p> <p>As of 2018, approximately 14% of school-age children in the USA receive special education services due to difficulties in academic, cognitive, and social-emotional development (National Center for Education Statistics [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 defines special education as individualized instruction designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. Students receiving special education services are entitled to a free and appropriate education to meet their specific educational needs, which vary by disability, age, and functioning level. Examples of special education services include specially designed instruction, additional support in the general education classroom, and related services, such as speech therapy.</p> <p>A child may qualify for special education services under several categories. More than a quarter of children receiving special education services qualify under the category of a specific learning disability (SLD) (National Center for Education Statistics [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>]). A specific learning disability is defined as, "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations" (IDEA [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref3">17</reflink>]). The largest group of individuals with SLD classify as having a reading disability (Cortiella and Horowitz [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]). A specific learning disability in reading can include difficulties in word reading accuracy, reading rate or fluency, and/or reading comprehension (American Psychiatric Association [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>The educational and social consequences associated with having a reading disability are far-reaching. If a student is behind in reading skills early in their education, they are likely to remain behind their peers in age appropriate reading skills without intervention (Herbers et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref6">15</reflink>]). Moreover, students with learning disabilities are three times more likely to drop out of school when compared to all students (Horowitz et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]). Thus, effective reading intervention for individuals with reading disabilities has critical implications for student success.</p> <p>The National Reading Panel ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]) suggested that evidence-based approaches to reading intervention consider one or more of the following components: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A common reading skill associated with these components is the ability to recognize sight words. Sight words are defined differently throughout the literature (Murray et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]; Taylor et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]). For the purposes of this study, sight words will refer to, "high-frequency, irregularly spelled words that generally do not conform to conventional pronunciation rules, and thus must be memorized as unanalyzed wholes" (National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref11">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>A common strategy used to teach sight words is the use of flashcards procedures (Miles and Ehri [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]). One traditional approach to using flashcards, named Traditional Drill (TD), involves creating a list of unknown items (~ 10) and presenting the items individually on flashcards one at a time. Each item is modeled, and then the correct response is prompted (e.g., "Say____"). The instructor presents each card, one after the other, regardless of the child's response. Once all the unknown items are modeled, the session is completed (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]). Another common approach that uses flashcards to teach sight words is Incremental Rehearsal (IR; Tucker [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]). The IR procedure has demonstrated effectiveness in teaching vocabulary words, letter sounds, and math facts to students from different age groups with and without disabilities (Burns et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref15">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref16">7</reflink>]; Codding et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]; Rahn et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]). During IR, flashcards with known items are presented at a ratio of 10% unknown items to 80–90% known items (Burns et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]). The instructor presents an unknown item followed by a known item and continues to add known items until the instructor presents all the items. After the child rehearses the unknown item nine times, the instructor removes the last known item and replaces it with a new unknown item. This sequence is repeated until new unknown items are presented with nine known items (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]; MacQuarrie et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The interspersal of known and unknown items is a considerable advantage of IR compared to other traditional flashcard drill procedures. Some researchers propose that the interspersing of unknown items establishes a spacing effect via distributed practice (e.g., practicing unknown stimuli for brief units of time over an extended period) that is superior to massed practice (e.g., practicing unknown stimuli for an isolated and extended period) (Varma and Schleisman [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]). Others suggest interspersing may lead to better attending behavior to unknown items as a function of the inclusion of known items (Burns et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]; Nevin et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]). Specifically, the inclusion of known items may result in a richer schedule of reinforcement (Neef et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref25">28</reflink>]) and an appropriate instructional difficulty level (Roberts et al. 1991) that increases the probability a child will comply with the more difficult task of attending to unknown items (i.e., behavioral momentum).</p> <p>Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of IR and the advantage of interspersing unknown and known items, there are constraints inherent in the procedure. IR limits the number of exposures to a word by designating only nine practice trials, when some students may need greater or fewer than these nine trials to master a sight word (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]). In addition, the IR procedure limits the number of new words to learn during a trial because 90% of the words presented in the nine trials are known (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]). Overall, the procedure establishes an artificial restriction on the number of unknown words to offer during a teaching session if the session is of a reasonable length, which negatively influences the efficiency of learning (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]; Joseph and Nist [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]). To date, research on the efficiency of IR is inconclusive (Petersen-Brown and Burns [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In response to some of these noted disadvantages, Kupzyk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]) introduced a modified version of IR named Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR). The procedure incorporates increased opportunities to respond to unknown stimuli by only using unknown items; uses learner responding as a basis for changing the instructional items rather than the order of presentation; and implements an antecedent prompt with prompt fading to facilitate the pace of instruction. The instructor identifies a set of unknown items and introduces an unknown item by presenting the stimuli on a flashcard and reading the item aloud. Then, the instructor verbally instructs the child to repeat the verbal model and provides the child with future opportunities to read the unknown item independently. As the child reads the unknown items correctly, the instructor introduces new unknown items one at a time. The SIR procedure retains the advantages of interspersal because as the reader learns the unknown items, the reader practices them with new unknown items added to the instructional pile (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref32">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>While both IR and SIR demonstrate effectiveness for school-aged students (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]), there are other relevant variables to consider, such as their comparative efficiency and maintenance of treatment effects. January et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]) evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of the SIR approach compared to IR for four, elementary-school-aged general education students. Weekly assessments on sight word reading accuracy determined effectiveness of the procedures and the participant's learning rate, reported as the amount of change in student achievement per unit of time spent learning (Skinner [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref35">37</reflink>]), and the average length of the session measured efficiency. Efforts to increase the efficiency of the SIR procedure included applying a criterion for word removal, such that unknown words met criterion as "known" after three consecutive correct responses during a session. The instructor removed items from the instructional pile to allow more instructional time for new unknown words instead of rehearsing "known" words. Both interventions demonstrated effectiveness, however SIR was more efficient than IR for three of the four participants and all participants retained a greater percentage of words on a weekly basis in the SIR condition. The researchers noted that SIR was less time-consuming than IR (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>While there is preliminary evidence to suggest that SIR is a viable method for teaching sight words to individuals with difficulties in reading (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]; Klingbell et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref38">20</reflink>]; Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]; Richman et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>]), the effectiveness and efficiency of SIR has not been evaluated with the special education population. The efficiency of reading interventions is especially important for students receiving special education services because they are already behind their same age peers, and the implementation of individualized instruction requires a portion of finite time that is limited for both the student and the instructor (Hammerschmidt-Snidarich et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]). The current study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the SIR procedure with a modified criterion of removal for students receiving special education services for specific learning disabilities in reading. We modified the criterion of removal from three consecutive correct responses during an instructional trial to three consecutive correct responses during assessment sessions. The modification allowed for a more conservative measure of sight word acquisition and eliminated the need to collect data simultaneously with intervention implementation.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411771-3">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were three, third-grade students receiving special education services for a specific learning disability in reading. Participants each had different general education teachers and classrooms. A different public-school para-educator provided specialized support for each participant. The para-educator provided inclusion support, which is additional in-class assistance, to each participant during their reading classes. The special education teacher did not provide assistance or instruction in reading to participants. The special education teacher's primary role was to review progress on IEP goals with the general education teachers at least every 12 weeks. The type and length of special education services specified in each student's Individualized Education Plans (IEP) remained the same throughout the study.</p> <p>The special education teacher conducted a records review and reported information on the participants' Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]) reading levels assessed at the beginning of the school year, IEP goals, and the amount of time for IEP services at the time of the study in a post hoc interview with the school psychologist. The Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]) reading levels are curriculum-based measures the school district used to determine students' independent and instructional reading level according to the Fountas and Pinnell Level Gradient™. Each level on the gradient is associated with a school grade level (i.e., first, second, third, etc.). A description of each participant is provided below, and the participant's names were changed to protect identity.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-4">Amanda</hd> <p>Amanda was a 9-year-old female in third grade receiving special education services for a SLD in the areas of basic reading, reading comprehension, oral expression, listening comprehension, and written expression. Her Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) reading level was a G, equivalent to grade 1.5 or age 7. The services listed in her IEP included inclusion support (30 min per day, four times per week) during general education reading, writing, and math classes. She also received small group services (30 min per day, four times per week) for math with the special education teacher where she was in a separate classroom with a smaller number of students working only on math skills. Amanda's IEP reading goals aimed to improve her overall reading level and sight word recognition. The goals in her IEP included increasing her independent reading level to an H with 80% accuracy and demonstrating sight word recall of 50% of the third-grade Dolch word list.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-5">David</hd> <p>David was a 9-year-old male in third grade receiving special education services for a SLD in the areas of reading comprehension, written expression, and oral expression. David completed second grade twice before entering third grade due to deficits in reading. His Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]) reading level was a level K, equivalent to grade 2.3–2.5 or age 8. The services listed in his IEP included speech therapy (25 min per week, one time per week) with the speech language pathologist in a separate classroom and inclusion support in his general education reading class (30 min per day, four times per week). David's IEP reading goals included increasing his independent reading level to a level M with 70% accuracy.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-6">Jennifer</hd> <p>Jennifer was a 10-year-old female in third grade receiving special education services for a SLD in the areas of basic reading, reading comprehension, reading fluency, math calculation, and written expression. Jennifer also completed second grade twice before entering third grade due to academic deficits in several subjects. Her Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]) reading level was a level K, equivalent to grade 2.3–2.5 or age 8. The services listed in her IEP included inclusion support in her reading, writing, and math classes (30 min per day, four times per week). Jennifer's IEP reading goals aimed to improve her performance in independently identifying the meaning and understanding the use of common prefixes and suffixes with 70% accuracy.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-7">Materials and Setting</hd> <p>The study was conducted in a small, rural elementary school in the southern part of the United States. Each participant met individually with the researcher, who was also the school psychologist, in a 12ft by 20ft office at the elementary school. The room included two desks, a calendar on the wall, a chalkboard, and several chairs. The researcher used an individualized set of 25 target words for each participant. Each word was typed in landscape orientation on a flashcard (3in by 5in) in black, 48 size, Times New Roman font. The researcher used a manila folder to shield discarded flashcards.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-8">General Procedure</hd> <p>Participants' reading instruction in the general education classroom remained the same throughout the baseline and intervention phases. A post hoc interview with the participants' special education teacher indicated that the participants were taught the same reading lessons in the general education classroom as students without reading disabilities. The special education teacher reported that the general education teachers did not use a planned curriculum and did not implement specifically programmed reading interventions for the participants aside from inclusion support. The researcher did not inform the teachers, para-educators, or caregivers of when the participant began intervention from baseline or of what words were being targeted during intervention. The researcher targeted different words for each participant; therefore, participants did not practice the same word as another participant. The reading supports listed in the participants' IEPs remained at the same frequency and duration throughout the baseline and intervention phases. The researcher conducted two assessment sessions for progress monitoring per week for each participant during the baseline and intervention conditions. The researcher collected paper data on the words read correctly, words read incorrectly, words presented during the instructional session, and words removed from the instructional pile, for each intervention and assessment session. The researcher conducted two 8-min SIR sessions per week for each participant during the intervention condition. The total number of weeks for the study, including a 5-week maintenance check, was 10 weeks.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-9">Experimental Design</hd> <p>The study used a multiple baseline design across participants to assess the effectiveness of SIR intervention for participants with reading disabilities relative to baseline without making comparisons to other reading interventions.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-10">Dependent Variables and Data Collection</hd> <p>The total number of words read correctly (WRC) at each assessment session was the dependent variable, which was defined as giving a correct response to sight word presentation by pronouncing the sight word without error within 3 s of presentation. If the participant made an error and corrected it within the 3 s, then the response was scored as correct. If the word was pronounced with error and not corrected by the reader within 3 s, the response was scored as incorrect. The efficiency measure was based on the student's learning rate (Skinner [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref47">37</reflink>]), and calculated by the total number of WRC by the participant at maintenance divided by total intervention time in minutes.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-11">Pre-Baseline Assessment</hd> <p>Participants met with the researcher individually for less than 15 min to determine their 25 unknown target words to include in the study<emph>.</emph> All participants began by viewing the same list of 46 second<sups>_</sups>grade Dolch sight words printed from <ulink href="http://www.mrsperkins.com">www.mrsperkins.com</ulink> (Ramsay [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]). The researcher instructed the participants to read each word. The researcher circled incorrect responses on the printed list but did not provide any verbal feedback or reinforcement. Participants' continued reading until the researcher identified 25 target words from the list read incorrectly. If a participant did not read at least 25 words on the second-grade Dolch sight word list incorrectly, then the researcher presented a new printed list of 41 third-grade level Dolch sight words from the same website. If those two lists did not include a cumulative 25 unknown words, the researcher presented a third list of 119 fourth-grade level Dolch sight words printed from <ulink href="http://www.dolchword.net">www.dolchword.net</ulink>.</p> <p>Amanda's 25 target words included 15 words from the second grade list and 10 words from the third-grade list. David met the 25 target word criterion entirely from the fourth-grade list. Jennifer's target words included 1 word from the second-grade list, 10 words from the third-grade list, and 13 from the fourth-grade list.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-12">Assessment During Baseline</hd> <p>The baseline assessment sessions began a week after the pre-baseline assessment. During baseline, participants met with the researcher for two baseline assessment sessions per week, with at least one day between assessments. The researcher conducted continuous baseline assessment sessions, instead of probes, to distribute potential testing effects equally across the participants that could occur from repeated exposure to the words. The researcher presented the 25 words selected for intervention from the pre-baseline assessment one at a time from a faced-down shuffled pile of flashcards during each assessment session. The researcher presented the card and removed the card after 3 s without providing verbal feedback, regardless of whether the participant engaged in an incorrect or correct response. The researcher put the card in a corresponding correct or incorrect pile based on the participant's response. The card piles hid behind a folder blocking the participant from viewing the location of the correct and incorrect card piles. After presentation of the 25 cards, the researcher provided verbal praise to the participant (i.e., "Great job working with me today!") and the participant returned to class. The researcher reviewed the cards placed in the correct and incorrect piles and documented the corresponding results on a data sheet.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-13">Assessment After Baseline</hd> <p>During the intervention condition, assessment sessions followed the intervention sessions by one day. An interval of one day occurred between treatment and assessment sessions in order to provide a more conservative measure of skill acquisition. A 5-week maintenance check was conducted following each participant's last assessment session during intervention. These assessments followed the same assessment protocol as the baseline assessment sessions with all 25 target words.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-14">Modified Strategic Incremental Rehearsal</hd> <p>The words targeted for intervention were selected from a faced-down shuffled pile of the 25 words identified during the pre-baseline assessment. The researcher started an 8-min timer for each intervention session and implemented the SIR protocol (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]), with a modified criterion for removal, until the 8 min finished. The researcher did not take data while implementing the intervention sessions.</p> <p>On the first intervention session, the researcher began with the first instructional item by holding the flashcard directly in front of the participant, modeling the correct response (e.g., "This says 'box'") with a 0-s prompt delay and verbally instructing a correct response (e.g., "Say 'box'"). If the participant gave a correct response, the researcher provided verbal praise (i.e., "Good job!"). If the participant did not give a correct response, the researcher provided corrective feedback (e.g., "No. This says 'box'. Say 'box'"). The SIR protocol does not include a maximum or minimum number of repetitions for each trial. Therefore, the researcher needed to repeat this step until the participant engaged in the correct echoed response or the 8-min duration elapsed. All the participants in this study correctly echoed the response following corrective feedback. Once the participant echoed the response correctly, the researcher introduced the second instructional item by presenting a new flashcard with a different word (e.g., 'red'). The researcher presented the card and followed the same procedure. For example, the researcher held the flashcard directly in front of the participant, modelled the correct response with a 0-s time delay, and verbally instructed the participant to echo the modelled response (e.g., "This says red. Say 'red'").</p> <p>When the participant engaged in a correct modeled and verbally instructed response for the first two instructional items, the researcher shuffled the two flashcards and re-presented one at a time. The researcher presented the card and verbally instructed the student to give the correct response (e.g., "What does this say?" or "Read this word."). If the participant read the presented word correctly, the researcher provided verbal praise (e.g., "Great job!"). If the participant read the presented word incorrectly or did not respond within 2 s, the researcher modeled the correct response and verbally instructed the student to repeat it ("This says 'red.' Say 'red'"). The researcher repeated these steps until the participant responded correctly to both instructional items within 2 s without a verbal model or corrective feedback from the researcher. When the participant independently read both flashcards correctly, the researcher added a new flashcard to the instructional pile.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-15">Criterion for Changing Instructional Items</hd> <p>The number of cards in the instructional pile depended on the rate the participant read words correctly without correction during the 8-min intervention session. The researcher added a new flashcard to the instructional pile if the participant correctly responded to all the cards in the instructional pile. Unlike the criterion to add cards, the criterion for removal of a card from the instructional pile depended on performance during the assessment session, not the intervention session. If a participant engaged in a correct response to a word for three consecutive assessment sessions, then the word was removed from the instructional pile. Therefore, if a participant read a word correctly three times in baseline, those cards were not included in the draw pile for instruction. However, if the participant read a removed word incorrectly during any subsequent assessment sessions the researcher added the card back into the draw pile for intervention. If a participant ended an intervention session with five cards in their instructional pile, then they began the next intervention session with the same five cards shuffled, unless one or more of those cards were removed from the instructional pile due to meeting the criterion of removal during the assessment sessions.</p> <p>The original SIR protocol determined word removal during the intervention session. However, since data collection for the current study took place during assessment sessions, the researcher based the criterion for word removal on the participants' performance at the assessment sessions. The modification also allowed for a stricter criterion of removal because the participant needed to demonstrate success reading the word on three separate occasions with delays between intervention sessions, instead of only needing to read the word three times correctly during one intervention session.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-16">Criterion for Discontinuing Intervention</hd> <p>Participants stopped receiving SIR intervention after reading all 25 target words correctly during an assessment session or after six SIR sessions. The ceiling of 25 words was selected because it seemed like an appropriate amount of words to target before school holiday breaks. The criterion for six intervention sessions was pre-established for participants who did not meet the 25 target words criterion at the last assessment session so that all participants had the same number of weeks without intervention prior to a 5-week maintenance check. This was necessary given that the study was conducted in a school setting with holiday breaks.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-17">Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Integrity</hd> <p>A second independent observer, a school psychology intern from a different school district, sat in on a sample of assessment sessions (46% of total sessions) and scored participant responses for the purposes of determining interobserver agreement. The observer had the list of words in the same order presented during the assessment session and marked the word as correct or incorrect based on the operational definition. An agreement between the researcher and independent observer was defined as marking the same word incorrect or correct. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements plus disagreements by the total number of agreements and multiplying by 100. The overall mean interobserver agreement for the total assessment sessions observed was 97%.</p> <p>The second independent observer sat in on a sample of intervention sessions (23% of total sessions) and scored treatment integrity using a checklist. The checklist included that the, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>) implementer used flashcards with unknown words, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>) session lasted exactly 8 min, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>) implementer shuffled cards prior to presentation, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref53">4</reflink>) implementer presented all items from the instructional pile one at a time, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>) implementer provided praise for correct responses, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>) implementer modeled the correct response for errors, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>) new instructional item was only added when the participant correctly responded to words in the instructional pile, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>) correct prompt was given when a new card was added, and (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref58">9</reflink>) data was collected on words read correctly and incorrectly. Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of steps correctly implemented by the total number of steps on the checklist. The average treatment integrity for the intervention sessions observed was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-18">Data Analysis</hd> <p>In addition to visual inspection of the data, effect size was determined by Percent of Non-Overlapping Data (PND) (Scruggs et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]), which takes into consideration the amount of non-overlap between data points in the baseline phase and those in intervention (Lenz [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]) and assists in determining the impact of the treatment effect. Scruggs and Mastropieri ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]) suggest that effect sizes greater than 70% are indicative of an effective intervention, effect sizes between 50% to 70% suggest questionable effectiveness, and those less than 50% are not considered effective.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-19">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 displays the number of words read correctly at each assessment session during baseline, intervention, and the 5-week maintenance check for all participants. At baseline, Amanda read zero words correctly for three consecutive sessions. David and Jennifer each read a mean number of 11 words correctly at baseline. An initial increase in sight word reading for both David and Jennifer occurred at the first baseline assessment session, however the number of words read correctly remained at the same level with minimal variability throughout baseline. The level of words read correctly increased immediately at each participants' respective onset of intervention, and the effects continued on an upward trend until withdrawal of intervention at criterion.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Total number of words read correctly during baseline, SIR intervention, and the maintenance check for Amanda, David, and Jennifer</p> <p>Overall, Amanda, David, and Jennifer, spent a total of 48 min, 16 min, and 40 min, respectively, receiving SIR instruction. Therefore, each participant received SIR instruction for less than one hour distributed over time. David read all 25 words correctly at the seventh assessment session and Jennifer read all 25 words correctly at the twelve assessment session. At maintenance check, Amanda read 21 out of the 25 words correctly, and David and Jennifer each read 22 of the 25 words correctly. Based on the modified criterion for removal, 13 words were removed from Amanda's instructional pile, eight from David's instructional pile, and 22 from Jennifer's instructional pile during intervention. Of those words, the researcher only re-introduced two for Amanda and three for Jennifer due to incorrect responding on subsequent assessment sessions after initial removal of the card. The words read incorrectly at the maintenance check for Amanda and David were words that never met criterion for removal. For Jennifer, the words read incorrectly at the maintenance check included two words that were removed from the instructional pile, and one word that was not.</p> <p>Based upon the words read correctly at the maintenance check, Amanda's learning rate was 0.43 words per min, David's learning rate was one word per min, and Jennifer's learning rate was 0.55 words per min. Amanda had the lowest learning rate relative to the other participants and also spent more time receiving SIR instruction, whereas David had the highest learning rate and spent the least amount of time receiving SIR instruction. However, all three participants read between 21 to 22 words correctly at the maintenance check after not receiving intervention for 5 weeks. The overall effect size of the intervention for all participants determined by PND was 100% because no data points in the intervention and maintenance conditions overlapped with data points in the baseline condition.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-20">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of the study demonstrated that levels of sight word reading increased for three elementary-school-aged participants identified with a SLD using Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR). Each participant read more words during the intervention phase compared to baseline, and effects on sight word reading occurred immediately at onset of intervention. Amanda read zero of the 25 unknown words during the pre-baseline and baseline assessments. She read 20 words correctly after six intervention sessions, and read 21 words correctly at the maintenance check. The two other participants (David and Jennifer) had similar baseline profiles in that they read approximately zero of the 25 unknown words during the pre-baseline assessment, and read at least 10 of the target words during the baseline assessments a week later. David read all 25 words correctly after only 2 intervention sessions and read 22 words correctly at the maintenance check, while Jennifer was able to read all 25 words correctly after 5 sessions and read 22 words correctly at the maintenance check. In addition, the effect size of 100% measured by PND demonstrated high effectiveness of the intervention for all three participants (Banda and Therrien [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>David learned 15 previously unknown sight words in two, 8-min sessions, Jennifer learned 15 previously unknown sight words in five, 8-min sessions, and Amanda learned 20 previously unknown sight words in six, 8-min sessions. The learning rates, also referred to as words read correctly per minute (WRC), revealed that David read one WRC, Jennifer read 0.55 WRC, and Amanda read 0.43 WRC. These rates are more efficient than those indicated in other SIR (January et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]) and IR studies (Burns [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]; Nist and Joseph [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]). This is consistent with previous findings that SIR results in a more rapid increase in responding and higher response rates when compared to IR (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]). Learning rates are especially important and relevant for educators when a student is experiencing academic difficulties. As Skinner ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref67">37</reflink>]) stated, a learning problem is not as much a failure to learn as it is a failure to learn a skill as <emph>rapidly</emph> as expected.</p> <p>The findings in this study are consistent with other studies using the SIR method to increase sight word recognition. January et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref68">18</reflink>]) found SIR to be effective with three out of four, second-grade students struggling in reading, and Kupzyk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]) found significant gains in sight word acquisition using SIR with four, first-grade students. However, compared to previous research on SIR the current study is unique in several ways. First, while the participants in other studies on SIR were general education students, the participants in this study were diagnosed with a SLD in reading and two participants had been retained (or held back a grade) due to academic weaknesses. The results show promise for providing the SIR intervention to students determined to be significantly behind their peers in reading. Two of the participants (David and Jennifer) repeated second grade and qualified with a SLD. This indicates that educators viewed these students as academically at-risk because retention is one of the most substantial and rarely used interventions in schools. According to Child Trends ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]), between 4 and 6 percent of US children in the first through third grade repeat a grade with the average of 4.3 percent in 2016 (Child Trends Databank). Therefore, SIR showed positive outcomes for participants that the school district determined needed significant academic assistance.</p> <p>In addition, the frequency of implementation in this study lends itself to be a more realistic application in public school settings. Unlike other SIR studies where the participants received intervention daily for four or five weeks, participants in this study received SIR intervention two times per week until they met criterion for up to six weeks. The three participants in this study were identified with a SLD in reading and received their special education services in the general education classroom. There is evidence that public schools are hiring paraprofessionals at an increasing rate to support students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Giangreco et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]). Thus, it is reasonable to expect a paraprofessional, who completes a variety of tasks daily, to provide 8 min of individual SIR intervention in the general education classroom several times a week and a challenge to expect them to provide 8 min daily (four to five times a week). The bi-weekly format also allows the paraprofessional to provide SIR intervention to more students.</p> <p>Since the SIR procedure is straightforward, it is also realistic to train paraprofessionals in SIR and have them provide intervention in the general education classroom. From a practical aspect, the SIR approach of providing an intervention several times per week aligns with the structure of how teachers write short-term goals for student's Individual Education Plans (IEP). Students receiving services in special education in public schools in the USA are required to have an IEP that includes academic goals and the amount of time to provide services (e.g., minutes per week). Ultimately, public schools are expected to provide successful interventions for children diagnosed with an academic disability, and this study showed effective, efficient, and positive results for using the SIR approach offered in a practical method of twice a week with three participants with a SLD in reading.</p> <p>The results of this study also showed that David and Jennifer read 10 of the previously unknown words 7 days after the collection of pre-baseline data, while Amanda did not read any of the previously unknown words. This outcome was unexpected but there might be several reasons for its occurrence. First, David and Jennifer had placed in a higher Fountas and Pinnell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>]) reading category (Level K) prior to baseline and intervention compared to Amanda (Level G), which placed her approximately 1 year behind David and Jennifer in reading. This, in combination with the fact that David and Jennifer had been retained in second grade, and thus, had more experience with classroom instruction, may have provided them with a readiness to learn that Amanda did not display.</p> <p>Interestingly, David and Jennifer's number of words read correctly increased between pre-baseline and the first baseline, but remained stable throughout subsequent baseline measures. David fluctuated between nine and eleven words read correctly across five baseline sessions before reading 20 and 25 words correctly during the two SIR intervention sessions. Jennifer fluctuated between ten to twelve words across seven baseline sessions before increasing to 25 words read correctly after five SIR sessions. Although word reading increased in baseline for Jennifer and David, the significant difference in the level of correct responding in baseline compared to intervention, as well as the increasing trend in correct responding in intervention phases, across participants' demonstrated replication of the effectiveness of SIR.</p> <p>The maintenance results indicated that all participants retained words at the 5-week follow up. The results, shown in Fig. 1, indicated that Amanda increased her words read correctly from 20 to 21, while David and Jennifer slightly decreased their words read correctly from 25 to 22. Maintenance for the three participants was impressive as they read 21 to 22 sight words that were unknown to them approximately 8 weeks prior to their initial interaction with the researcher and five weeks post-intervention. Though some participants read fewer words correctly from the end of SIR intervention to a maintenance check five weeks later, their overall word reading continued to remain higher than at baseline levels which is consistent with previous SIR results (Kupzyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). These findings continue to support the use of SIR and emphasize the importance of maintenance checks for knowledge retention.</p> <p>Even though the results of this study are positive and provide evidence for the efficiency and effectiveness of SIR for children with specific learning disabilities in reading, there were limitations. Two of the three participants learned ten sight words during the week between acquiring the unknown word-list and baseline. The researcher circled the words each participant read incorrectly during the first pre-assessment, which could have served as feedback for two of the participants such that they learned to read those words differently during baseline. Future studies could attempt to control for the feedback during screening by running multiple pre-assessment sessions prior to determine the target words, and not circling words read incorrectly. Another limitation is that two of the participants reached the word ceiling quickly. Therefore, it is unknown how many additional previously unknown sight words could have been learned (i.e., a ceiling score/amount) using the SIR approach.</p> <p>Future studies could establish a list of more unknown words prior to the SIR intervention or, if a subject reaches the ceiling quickly, re-assess for additional unknown words, and continue SIR intervention. Additional future research could evaluate the effects of SIR with the special education population when implemented by teachers and para-educators within the school setting and compare the effects of SIR to the effects of concurrent reading intervention. Finally, implementing SIR with other special education populations can provide more generality of the model. This may include younger SLD students (e.g., first grade, second grade), or a population of students with an Intellectual Disability (ID). As Burns ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>]) recognized, identifying words in the community that are functional (e.g., street signs, signs in department stores) are essential for individuals diagnosed with an ID to become more independent in their community.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-21">Funding</hd> <p>The study was not funded.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-22">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411771-23">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-24">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>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.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-25">Human and Animal Rights</hd> <p>This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-26">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from participant's caregivers and informed assent was obtained from all participants of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0157411771-27">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0157411771-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed). Washington, DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref51" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Banda D, Therrien W. A teacher's guide to meta-analysis. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2008; 41: 66-71. 10.1177/004005990804100208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref52" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Burns MK. Comparison of opportunities to response within a drill model when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly. 2007; 22: 250-263. 10.1037/1045-3830.22.2.250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref23" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burns M, Ardoin S, Parker D, Hodgson J, Klingbeil D, Scholin S. Interspersal technique and behavioral momentum for reading word lists. School Psychology Review. 2009; 38; 3: 428-434. 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref19" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burns M, Dean V, Foley S. Preteaching unknown keywords with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology. 2004; 42: 303-314. 10.1016/j.jsp.2004.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref15" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burns MK, Aguilar LN, Young H, Preast JL, Taylor CN, Walsh AD. Comparing the effects of incremental rehearsal and traditional dill on retention of mathematics facts and predicting the effects with memory. School Psychology. 2019; 34; 5: 521-530. 10.1037/spq0000312. 31045406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref16" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burns MK, Zaslofsky AF, Kanive R, Parker DC. Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2012; 21: 185-202. 10.1007/s10864-012-9160-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref57" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Child Trends Databank. (2018). Children who repeated a grade. https://<ulink href="http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=children-who-repeated-a-grade">www.childtrends.org/?indicators=children-who-repeated-a-grade</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Codding RS, Archer J, Connell J. A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2010; 19: 93-105. 10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cortiella, C, &amp; Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The State of Learning Disabilities: Facts, Trends, and Emerging Issues (3rd ed.). National Center for Learning Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolch Word. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.dolchword.net/">www.dolchword.net/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fountas I, Pinnell CGS. Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment system 1. 2008: Portsmouth, NH; Heinemann</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giangreco M, Broer S, Edelman S. That was then, this is now! Paraprofessional support for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptionality. 2010; 10: 47-64. 10.1207/S15327035EX1001_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammerschmidt-Snidarich SM, Edwards LM, Christ TJ, Thayer AJ. Leveraging technology: A multi-component personalized system of instruction to teach sight words. Journal of School Psychology. 2019; 72: 150-171. 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.005. 30819460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herbers J, Cutuli J, Supkoff L, Heistad D, Chan C, Hinz E, Masten A. Early reading skills and academic achievement trajectories of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high residential mobility. Educational Researcher. 2012; 41; 9: 366-374. 10.3102/0013189X12445320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horowitz, S. H, Rawe, J, &amp; Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The State of Learning Disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Executive-Summary.Fin%5f.03142017.pdf">www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Executive-Summary.Fin%5f.03142017.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8/c/10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> January S, Lovelace M, Foster T, Ardoin S. A comparison of two flashcard interventions for teaching sight words to early readers. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2017; 26; 2: 151-168. 10.1007/s10864-016-9263-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joseph LM, Nist LM. Comparing the effects of unknown-known ratios on word reading learning versus learning rates. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2006; 15: 69-79. 10.1007/s10864-006-9008-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klingbell DA, January SAA, Ardoin SP. Comparative efficacy and generalization of two word-reading interventions with English learners in elementary school. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2019. 10.1007/s10864-019-09331-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kupzyk S, Edward JD III, Andersen MN. A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44: 781-792. 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-781. 22219529. 3251281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lenz S. Calculating effect size in single-case research: A comparison of non-overlap methods. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2012; 46: 64-73. 10.1177/0748175612456401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacQuarrie L, Tucker J, Burns M, Hartman B. Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review. 2002; 31: 584-595. 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles K, Ehri L. Learning to read words on flashcards: Effects of sentence contexts and word class in native and nonnative english-speaking kindergartners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2017; 41: 103-113. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray BA, McIlwain MJ, Wang C, Murray G, Finley S. How do beginners learn to read irregular words as sight words?. Journal of Research in Reading. 2019; 42: 123-136. 10.1111/1467-9817.12250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2019, n.d.). The condition of education: students with disabilities. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. 2000: Washington, DC; National Institute for Literacy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neef NA, Iwata BA, Page TJ. The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sight reading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1977; 10: 738. 10.1901/jaba.1977.10-738. 1311253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nevin JA, Mandell C, Atak JR. The analysis of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1983; 39: 49-59. 10.1901/jeab.1983.39-49. 16812312. 1347882</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nist, L, &amp; Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban firstgraders′ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review,37(3), 294–308.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petersen-Brown S, Burns MK. Enhancing maintenance and generalization of sight words taught with incremental rehearsal: Applying the depth of processing and generalization frameworks. American Psychological Association. 2019; 34; 3: 307-317. 10.1037/spq0000294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahn NL, Wilson J, Egan A, Brandes D, Kinkel A, Peterson M, Comas J. Using incremental rehearsal to teach letter sounds to English language learners. Education and Treatment of Children. 2015; 38; 1: 71-92. 10.1353/etc.2015.0000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramsay, N. (2003). Mrs. Perkins Dolch words. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.mrsperkins.com">www.mrsperkins.com</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richman DM, Grubb L, Thompson S. Descriptive analysis and comparison of strategic incremental rehearsal to "Business as Usual" sight-word instruction for an adult nonreader with intellectual disability. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 2018; 21; 1: 23-31. 10.1080/17518423.2016.1238412. 27792403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA, Casto G. The quantitative synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education. 1987; 8: 24-33. 10.1177/074193258700800206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification. 1998; 22: 221-242. 10.1177/01454455980223001. 9722473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner CH. Theoretical and applied implications of precisely measuring learning rates. School Psychology Review. 2008; 37: 309-314. 10.1080/02796015.2008.12087878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor CN, Aguilar L, Burns MK, Preast JL, Warmbold-Brann K. Reliability and relationship to retention of assessing an acquisition rate for sight words with kindergarten participants. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2018; 36; 8: 798-807. 10.1177/0734282917707144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker JA. Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. 1988: Chattanooga, TN; Unpublished teaching materials, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varma S, Schleisman KB. The cognitive underpinnings of incremental rehearsal. School Psychology Review. 2014; 43; 2: 222-228. 10.1080/02796015.2014.12087447</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Laura Phipps; Eric Lee Robinson and Stacey Grebe</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref71"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1338383 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An Evaluation of Strategic Incremental Rehearsal on Sight Word Acquisition among Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phipps%2C+Laura%22">Phipps, Laura</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5057-0728">0000-0002-5057-0728</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robinson%2C+Eric+Lee%22">Robinson, Eric Lee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Grebe%2C+Stacey%22">Grebe, Stacey</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Behavioral Education</i></searchLink>. Jun 2022 31(2):281-297. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sight+Method%22">Sight Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sight+Vocabulary%22">Sight Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Stimuli%22">Visual Stimuli</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10864-020-09398-y – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1053-0819 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The Strategic Incremental Rehearsal (SIR) intervention, a modified version of Incremental Rehearsal, is an efficient flashcard procedure that has demonstrated effectiveness on sight word acquisition for children who exhibit reading difficulties. However, to date, the procedure has not been evaluated with children identified with a reading disability who have a history of receiving special education services. This study uses a multiple baseline design across participants to examine the effects of SIR with a modified criterion for removal on sight word reading with three third-grade participants receiving special education services for a specific learning disability in reading. Results indicated sight word reading increased for all 3 participants at the onset of intervention compared to baseline. The total intervention time for each participant ranged from 16 to 48 min. All 3 participants correctly read a minimum of 21 out of 25 targeted words at a 5-week maintenance check. The results indicated that SIR with a modified criterion of removal is a potentially effective and efficient intervention for sight word reading for participants with specific learning disabilities in reading. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1338383 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1338383 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10864-020-09398-y Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 StartPage: 281 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Sight Method Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade 3 Type: general – SubjectFull: Special Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities Type: general – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials Type: general – SubjectFull: Sight Vocabulary Type: general – SubjectFull: Visual Stimuli Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An Evaluation of Strategic Incremental Rehearsal on Sight Word Acquisition among Students with Specific Learning Disabilities in Reading Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Phipps, Laura – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Robinson, Eric Lee – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Grebe, Stacey IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1053-0819 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 31 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
