An emerging body of research suggests that incorporating randomization schemes in single-case research designs strengthens study internal validity and data evaluation. The purpose of this study was to test the utility and feasibility of a randomized alternating-treatment design in an investigation that compared the combined effects of vocabulary instruction and the paraphrasing strategies on expository comprehension of six students with reading difficulties. We analyzed the data using three types of randomization tests as well as visual analysis. The visual analysis and randomization tests confirmed the additional benefit of vocabulary instruction on expository comprehension for one student. However, the effects were not replicated across the other five students. We found that proper randomization schemes can improve both internal validity and data analysis strategies of the alternating-treatment design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonR. C.NagyW. E. (1993). The vocabulary conundrum (Tech. Rep. No. 570). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354489)
2.
ApthorpH. S.RandelB.CherasaroT.ClarkT.McKeownM. G.BeckI. L. (2012). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary program on word knowledge and passage comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 160–188. doi:10.1080/19345747.2012.660240
3.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
4.
BaerD. M. (1977). “Perhaps it would be better not to know everything.”Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167–172. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167
5.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.IIIJonesK. M.LentzF. E.Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66–79. doi:10.1177/00224669040380020101
6.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BosC. S.AllenA. A.ScanlonD. J., (1989). Vocabulary instruction and reading comprehension with bilingual learning disabled students. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 38, 173–179.
8.
BosC. S.AndersP. L., (1992). Using interactive teaching and learning strategies to promote text comprehension and content learning for students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39, 225–238. doi:10.1080/0156655920390305
9.
BryantD. P.GoodwinM.BryantB. R.HigginsK. (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 117–128. doi:10.2307/1593594
10.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP., (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.
11.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
12.
ChallJ. S.JacobsV. A. (1983). Writing and reading in the elementary grades: Developmental trends among low-SES children. Language Arts, 60, 617–626.
13.
ChristT. J. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers: Technical manual version 2.0. Minneapolis, MN: Author and FastBridge Learning.
14.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2007). Applied beahvior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
15.
CoyneM. D.Kame’euniD. W.CarnineD. W. (2007). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
16.
DugardP.FileP.TodmanJ. (2012). Single-case and small-N experimental designs: A practical guide to randomization tests (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44. doi:10.1080/19345740802539200
19.
EllisE. S.GravesA. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10. doi:10.1177/875687059001000201
20.
EllisE. S.LenzB. K., (1987). A component analysis of effective learning strategies for LD students. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2, 94–107.
21.
FerronJ.JonesP. K. (2006). Tests for the visual analysis of response-guided multiple-baseline data. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 66–81. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.1.66-81
22.
FerronJ.LevinJ. R., (2014). Single-case permutation and randomization statistical tests: Present status, promising new developments. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23.
FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.LomasJ. E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 387–406. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-387
24.
FisherW. W.MazurJ. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-387
25.
ForeC.BoonR. T.LowrieK. (2007). Vocabulary instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: A comparison of two instructional models. Learning Disabilities, 5, 49–73.
26.
GriggW. SDaaneM. C.JinY.CampbellJ. R. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading 2002 (NCES 2003-521). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003521
27.
HagamanJ. L.CaseyK. J.ReidR., (2010). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial & Special Education, 33, 110–123. doi:10.1177/0741932510364548
28.
HagamanJ.ReidR. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234. doi:10.1177/0741932507311638
29.
HasbrouckJ. E.IhnotC.RogersG. H. (1999). “Read Naturally”: A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 27–38. doi:10.1080/19388079909558310
30.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Tech. Rep. No. 1702). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
31.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS. L.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
32.
HuaY.RodgersD.PanosK. (2019). Effects of the Concrete-Representation-Abstract intervention on math word problem solving skills of young adults with intellectual disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
33.
HuaY.Woods-GrovesS.FordJ. W.NoblesK. A. (2014). Effects of the paraphrasing strategy on expository reading comprehension of young adults with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 429–439.
34.
HuaY.YuanC.MonroeK.HinzmanM.AlqahtaniS. S.AlwahbiA.KernA. (2018). Effects of the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend and Goal Setting intervention on decoding and reading comprehension skills of young adults with intellectual disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21, 279–289. doi:10.3109/17518423.2016.1139011
35.
HuitemaB. E. (1986). Autocorrelation in behavioral research: Wherefore art thou? In PolingA.FuquaR. W. (Eds.), Research methods in applied behavior analysis: Issues and advances (pp. 187–208). New York, NY: Plenum.
JitendraA. K.EdwardsL. L.SacksG.JacobsonL. A., (2004). What research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70, 299–322. doi:10.1177/001440290407000303
38.
KazdinA. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39.
KennedyC. (2004). Single case designs for educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
40.
Kratochwill.T. R. (2015). Single-case research design and analysis: An overview. In Kratochwill.T. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis (psychology revivals) (pp. 13–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
42.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 124–144. doi:10.1037/a0017736
43.
KratochwillT. R.StoiberK. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations of the procedural and coding manual of Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 341–389. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.4.341.20872
44.
LedfordJ. R.ZimmermanK. N.SchwartzI.OdomS. L. (2018). Guide for the use of single case design research evidence. Arlington, VA: Division for Research of the Council for Exceptional Children.
45.
MatyasT. A.GreenwoodK. M. (1990). Visual analysis of single-case time series: Effects of variability, serial dependence, and magnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 341–351. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-341
46.
McKeownM. G.CrossonA. C.MooreD. W.BeckI. L. (2018). Word knowledge and comprehension effects of an academic vocabulary intervention for middle school students. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 572–616. doi:10.3102/0002831217744181
47.
MonroeE. E.PendergrassM. R. (1997). Effects of mathematical vocabulary instruction on fourth grade students. Reading Improvement, 34, 120–132.
48.
OdomS.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148. doi:10.1177/001440290507100201
49.
PalmerJ.BoonR. T.SpencerV. G. (2014). Effects of concept mapping instruction on the vocabulary acquisition skills of seventh-graders with mild disabilities: A replication study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 165–182. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.818890
50.
ParsonsonB. S.BaerD. M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Single-subject research: Strategies for evaluating change (pp. 101–165). New York, NY: Academic Press.
51.
SchumakerJ. B.DentonP. H.DeshlerD. D. (1984). Learning strategies curriculum: The paraphrasing strategy. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
52.
StocksJ. T.WilliamsM. (1995). Evaluation of single subject data using statistical hypothesis tests versus visual inspection of charts with and without celeration lines. Journal of Social Research, 20, 105–126. doi:10.1300/J079v20n03_06
53.
Ward-HornerJ.SturmeyP. (2010). Component analysis using single-subject experimental designs: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 685–704. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-685
54.
WoleryM.GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (2014). Comparison designs. In Gast.D. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 297–345). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781315150666
