Individualizing instruction is a time-consuming aspect of classroom practice. Testing multiple interventions, and monitoring each to see which is most effective for a student can be prohibitively time consuming. However, Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) is an assessment procedure that can be used to quickly identify an intervention that is likely to be successful with an individual student. BEA provides teachers with a method to efficiently collect data and predict which intervention is most likely to be successful before a significant amount of time and resources are invested. The BEA process can be used with students at a variety of grade levels for the purpose of academic and behavior intervention. This paper describes how to implement BEA in reading with students with intellectual disabilities in order to prepare them for opportunities in postsecondary education. We will also discuss how to overcome hurdles that practitioners may experience implementing the process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurnsM. K.GanuzaZ. M.LondonR. M. (2008). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: Single-case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9076-z
2.
CarsonP. M.EckertT. L. (2003). An experimental analysis of mathematics instructional components: Examining the effects of student-selected versus empirically-selected interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 35–54.
3.
ConnorC. M.AlbertoP. A.ComptonD. L.O'ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. NCSER 2014-3000. National Center for Special Education Research.
4.
Coolong-ChaffinM.WagnerD. (2015). Using brief experimental analysis to intensify Tier 3 reading interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12086
5.
DalyE. J.IIIPersampieriM.McCurdyM.GortmakerV. (2005). Generating reading interventions through experimental analysis of academic skills: Demonstration and empirical evaluation. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 395–414.
6.
DenoS. L. (2016). Data-based decision-making. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_2
7.
DufreneB. A.WarzakW. J. (2006). Brief experimental analysis of Spanish reading fluency: An exploratory evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9007-9
8.
GrigalM.PapayC. (2018). The promise of postsecondary education for students with intellectual disability. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2018(160), 77–88.
9.
GrigalM.PapayC.WeirC.HartD.McClellanM. L. (2022). Characteristics of higher education programs enrolling students with intellectual disability in the United States. Inclusion, 10(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-10.1.35
10.
GoodmanM.FinneganR.MohadjerL.KrenzkeT.HoganJ. (2013). Literacy, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments among US adults: Results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult competencies 2012. First look (NCES 2014-008). National Center for Education Statistics.
11.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Publications.
12.
HuaY.Woods-GrovesS.YuanC. (2019). Literacy interventions for young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the inclusive postsecondary education settings: A review of a program of research. Journal of Inclusive Postsecondary Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.13021/jipe.2019.2456
McCardleP.ChhabraV. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Brookes Publishing Company.
15.
McComasJ. J.WagnerD.ChaffinM. C.HoltonE.McDonnellM.MonnE. (2009). Prescriptive analysis: Further individualization of hypothesis testing in brief experimental analysis of reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9080-y
16.
MoatsL.TolmanC. (2019). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling: The challenge of learning to read (2nd ed.). Sopris West.
17.
MongM. D.MongK. W. (2011). The utility of brief experimental analysis and extended intervention analysis in selecting effective mathematics interventions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(2), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9143-8
18.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The nation’s report card: Mathematics and reading assessments. Washington DC: Institute for Educational Science. U.S. Department of Education.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K.KilgusS. P. (2020). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. The Guilford Press.
21.
RomanS. P. (2004). Illiteracy and older adults: Individual and societal implications. Educational Gerontology, 30(2), 79–93.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and special education, 25(4), 252–261.
24.
Van BonW.H.J.BoksebeldL.M.Font FreideT.A.M.Van den HurkJ.M. (1991). A comparison of three methods of reading-whilelistening. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 471–476.
25.
WehmanP.TaylorJ.BrookeV.AvelloneL.WhittenburgH.HamW.BrookeA. M.CarrS. (2018). Toward competitive employment for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: What progress have we made and where do we need to go. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 43(3), 131–144.
