We conducted this systematic review to map the literature and classify the evidence-based status of teacher-directed strategies to increase students’ opportunities to respond (OTR) during whole-group instruction across the K-12 continuum. Specifically, we conducted this review to determine whether OTR could be classified as an evidence-based practice according to Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. We examined the extent to which 21 included studies addressed quality indicators and evidence-based practice standards using a modified, weighted criterion for methodologically sound studies. Three studies met all eight quality indicators and 11 studies met or exceeded 80% of quality indicators following a weighted criterion to define methodologically sound studies. Results indicated teacher-directed OTR strategy of response cards in K-12 school settings to be a potentially evidence-based practice. Educational implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.
*AdamsonR. A.LewisT. J. (2017). A comparison of three-opportunities-to-respond strategies on the academic engaged time among high school students who present challenging behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 41–51. doi:10.1177/0198742916688644
2.
*ArmendarizF.UmbreitJ. (1999). Using active responding to reduce disruptive behavior in a general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 152–158. doi:10.1177/109830079900100303
3.
BartonE. E.PustejovskyJ. E.MagginD. M.ReichowB. (2017). Technology-aided instruction and intervention for students with ASD: A meta-analysis using novel methods of estimating effect sizes for single-case research. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 371–386. doi:10.1177/0741932517729508
4.
*BloodE. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 214–228. doi:10.1177/019874291003500303
5.
BrophyJ.GoodT. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 328–375). New York, NY: MacMillan.
6.
*CavanaughR.HewardW.DonelsonF. (1996). Effects on response cards during lesson closure on the academic performance of secondary students in an earth science course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 403–406. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-403
7.
*ChristleC. A.SchusterJ. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 147–165.
8.
*ClarkeL. S.HaydonT.BauerA.EpperlyA. C. (2016). Inclusion of students with an intellectual disability in the general education classroom with the use of response cards. Preventing School Failure, 60, 35–42. doi:10.1080/1045988x.2014.96680
9.
CommonE. A.LaneK. L.PustejovskyJ. E.JohnsonA. H.JohlL. E. (2017). Functional assessment-based interventions for students with or at-risk for high-incidence disabilities: Field-testing single-case synthesis methods. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 331–352. doi:10.1177/0741932517693320
10.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. doi:10.1177/0741932514557271
11.
CookB. G.CookS. C.CollinsL. W. (2016). Terminology and evidence-based practice for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Exploring some devilish details. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 4–13. doi:10.1177/107429561602500202
12.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1987). Academy for effective instruction: Working with mildly handicapped students. Reston, VA: Author.
13.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). CEC standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Author.
14.
*DavisL. L.O’NeillR. E. (2004). Use of response cards with a group of students with learning disabilities including those for whom English is a second language. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 219–222. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-219
15.
DownerJ. T.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.PiantaR. C. (2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning?School Psychology Review, 36, 413–432.
16.
EnnisR. P.RoyerD. J.LaneK. L.GriffithC. E. (2017). A systematic review of precorrection in PK-12 settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 40, 465–495. doi:10.1353/etc.2017.0021
17.
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). S.1177—114th Congress (2015-2016).
18.
*GardnerR. G.HewardW. L.GrossiT. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63–71. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-63
19.
*GeorgeC. L. (2010). Effects of response cards on performance and participation in social studies for middle school students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 200–213. doi:10.1177/019874291003500302
20.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. doi:10.1177/001440290507100202
21.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ. C.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
22.
*HaydonT.ConroyM. A.ScottT. M.SindelarP. T.BarberB. R.OrlandoA. M. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 27–40. doi:10.1177/1063426609333448
23.
*HaydonT.HunterW. (2011). The effects of two types of teacher questioning on teacher behavior and student performance: A case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 229–245. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0010
24.
*HaydonT.MancilG. R.Van LoanC. (2009). Using opportunities to respond in a general education classroom: A case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 32, 267–278. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0052
25.
HaydonT.MarsicanoR.ScottT. M. (2013). A comparison of choral and individual responding: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 57, 181–188. doi:10.1080/1045988x.2012.682184
26.
*HaydonT.Musti-RaoS.AlterP. (2017). Comparing choral responding and a choral responding plus mnemonic device during geography lessons for students with mild to moderate disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 40, 77–95. doi:10.1080/1045988x.2012.682184
27.
HedgesL. G.PustejovskyJ.ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single-case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3, 224–239. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1052
28.
HedgesL. G.PustejovskyJ.ShadishW. R. (2013). A standardized mean difference effect size for multiple baseline designs across individuals. Research Synthesis Methods, 4, 324–341. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1086
29.
HornC. (2010). Response cards: An effective intervention for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 116–123.
30.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McgeeG.OdomS.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
*LambertM. C.CartledgeG.HewardW. L.LoY. Y. (2006). Effects of response cards on disruptive behavior and academic responding during math lessons by fourth-grade urban students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 88–99. doi:10.1177/10983007060080020701
33.
LaneK. L.CommonE. A.RoyerD. J.MullerK. (2014). Group comparison and single-case research design quality indicator matrix using Council for Exceptional Children 2014 standards. Unpublished tool. Retrieved from http://www.ci3t.org/practice
34.
LaneK. L.KalbergJ. R.ShepcaroJ. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based interventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Exceptional Children, 75, 321–340. doi:10.1177/001440290907500304
35.
LaneK. L.MenziesH. M.EnnisR. P.OakesW. P. (2015). Supporting behavior for school success: A step-by-step guide to key strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
MacSuga-GageA. S.SimonsenB. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education & Treatment of Children, 38, 211–239. doi:10.1353/etc.2015.0009
38.
MagginD. M.LaneK. L.PustejovskyJ. E. (2017). Introduction to the special issue on single-case systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 323–330. doi:10.1177/0741932517717043
39.
MaheadyL.MalletteB.HarperG. F.SaccaK. (1991). Heads together: A peer-mediated option for improving the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 25–33. doi:10.1177/074193259101200206
40.
*MaheadyL.Michielli-PendlJ.MalletteB.HarperG. F. (2002). A collaborative research project to improve the academic performance of a diverse sixth grade science class. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 55–70. doi:10.1177/08884064020250010
41.
*McKenzieG. R.HenryM. (1979). Effects of testlike events on on-task behavior, test anxiety, and achievement in a classroom rule-learning task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 370–374. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.71.3.370
42.
McLeskeyJ.BarringerM.-D.BillingsleyB.BrownellM.JacksonD.KennedyM.ZieglerD. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.
43.
*MessengerM.CommonE. A.LaneK. L.OakesW. P.MenziesH. M.CantwellE. D.EnnisR. P. (2017). Increasing opportunities to respond for students with internalizing behaviors: The utility of choral and mixed responding. Behavioral Disorders, 42, 170–183. doi:10.1177/0198742917712968
44.
MontagueM.BergeronJ. (1997). Using prevention strategies in general education. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1–12. doi:10.17161/fec.v29i8.6754
45.
*MunroD. W.StephensonJ. (2009). The effects of response cards on student and teacher behavior during vocabulary instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795–800. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-795
46.
*NarayanJ. S.HewardW. L.GardnerR.CoursonF. H.OmnessC. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483–490. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-483
47.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Measurement-comparable effect sizes for single-case studies of free-operant behavior. Psychological Methods, 20, 342–359. doi:10.1037/met0000019
48.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2016). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version. 0.3.1).Retrieved from https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 99–112. doi:1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
51.
RandolphJ. J. (2007). Meta-analysis of the research on response cards: Effects on test achievement, quiz achievement, participation, and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 113–128. doi:10.1177/1098300707009002020
SainatoD. M.StrainP. S.LyonS. R. (1987). Increasing academic responding of handicapped preschool children during group instruction. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12, 23–30. doi:10.1177/105381518701200104
54.
SchnorrC. I.Freeman-GreenS.TestD. W. (2015). Response cards as a strategy for increasing opportunities to respond: An examination of the evidence. Remedial and Special Education, 37, 41–54. doi:10.1177/074193251557561
55.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.HornerR. H.OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (NCER 2015-002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
56.
ShadishW. R.ZelinskyN. A. M.VeveaJ. L.KratochwillT. R. (2016). A survey of publication practices of single-case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 656–673.
57.
SpencerT. D.DetrichR.SlocumT. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework for making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 127–151.
58.
StichterJ. P.LewisT. J.WhittakerT. A.RichterM.JohnsonN. W.TrussellR. P. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies: Comparisons among high- and low-risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 68–81. doi:10.1177/109830070832659
59.
SutherlandK. S.WehbyJ. H. (2001). Exploring the relationship between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and behavioral outcomes of students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 113–121. doi:10.1177/074193250102200205
60.
ValentineJ. C.Tanner-SmithE. E.PustejovskyJ. E.LauT. S. (2016). Between-case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single-case designs: A primer and tutorial using the SCDHLM web application. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration. doi:10.4073/cmdp.2016.1
*WoodC. L.MabryL. E.KretlowA. G.LoY.-Y.GallowayT. W. (2009). Effects of preprinted response cards on students’ participation and off-task behavior in a rural kindergarten classroom. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 28, 39–47.
63.
*XinJ. F.JohnsonM. L. (2015). Using clickers to increase on-task behaviors of middle school students with behavior problems. Preventing School Failure, 59, 49–57. doi:10.1080/1045988x.2013.823593
64.
ZelinskyN. A.ShadishW. (2018). A demonstration of how to do a meta-analysis that combines single-case designs with between-groups experiments: The effects of choice making on challenging behaviors performed by people with disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21, 266–278. doi:10.3109/17518423.2015.1100690
