Assessment data are used to make treatment recommendations for students with mild disabilities. However, no assessment procedures exist that allow one to predict with certainty that one academic intervention will be more effective than another academic intervention for a particular student with mild disabilities. Therefore, hypotheses regarding intervention effectiveness should be tested by assessing students' learning rates under different instructional procedures. In this demonstration, alternating treatment designs are used to show how more precise measurement of instructional time can impact the assessment of relative learning rates when students are exposed to more than one intervention. Discussion centers around the importance of time as a contextual variable when assessing the effects of academic interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., & Korinek, L. (1985). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going?Exceptional Children, 51, 388-397.
2.
Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517-555.
3.
Ayers, R. R., & Cooley, E. J. (1986). Sequential versus simultaneous processing on the K-ABC: Validity in predicting learning success. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 211-220.
4.
Bergan,J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.
5.
Berliner, D. C. (1984). The half-full glass: A review of research on teaching. In P. L. Hosford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching (pp. 51-85). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
7.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
8.
Deno, S. L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358-374.
9.
Fisher, G. L., Jenkins, S.J., Bancroft, M. J., & Kraft, L. M. (1988). The effects of K-ABC-based remedial teaching strategies on word recognition skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 307-312.
10.
Gettinger, M. (1984). Achievement as a function of time spent learning and time needed for learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 617-628.
11.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach. New York: Longman.
12.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Parkes, V., & Moore, J. (1993). Retention and generalization of spelling words acquired using a peer-mediated instructional procedure by children with mild handicapping conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 25-38.
13.
Heller, K., Holtzman, W., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligence testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley.
15.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). K-ABC: Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
16.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54, 228-239.
17.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford.
18.
Keith, T. Z. (1994). Intelligence is important, intelligence is complex. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 209-221.
19.
Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
20.
Kulak, A. G. (1993). Parallels between math and reading disabilities: Common issues and approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 666-673.
21.
Lapadat, J. C. (1991). Pragmatic language skills of students with language and/or learning disabilities: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 147-158.
22.
Macmann, G. M., & Barnett, D. W. (1994). Structural analysis of correlated factors: Lessons from the verbal-performance dichotomy of the Wechsler scales. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 161-197.
23.
McConnell, S. R. (1990). Best practices in evaluation educational programs. In A. Thomas &J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-II (pp. 353-370). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
24.
Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 241-254.
25.
Meyers, J., & Kundert, D. (1988). Implementing process assessment. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional opportunities for all students (pp. 173-198). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
26.
Morsink, C. V., Thomas, C. C., & Smith-Davis, J. (1987). Noncategorical special education programs: Processes and out-comes. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 287-311). Oxford: Pergamon.
27.
Ownby, R. L., Wallbrown, F., D'Atri, A., & Armstrong, B. (1985). Patterns of referrals for school psychological services. Special Services in the Schools, 1, 53-66.
28.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Alternative delivery systems: Legal and ethical impact. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional opportunities for all students (pp. 525-561). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
29.
Rose, T. L. (1984). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 544-548.
30.
Shapiro, E. S. (1987). Behavioral assessment in school psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Shapiro, E. S. (1989). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and interventions. New York: Guilford.
32.
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary?Psychological Review, 57, 193-216.
33.
Skinner, C. H., Ford,J. M., & Yunker, B. D. (1991). An analysis of instructional response requirements on the multiplication performance of behavior disordered students. Behavior Disorders, 17, 56-65.
34.
Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of taped words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123-133.
35.
Skinner, C. H., Smith, E. S., & McLean, J. E. (1994). The effects of intertrial interval duration on sight-word learning rates in children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 98-107.
36.
Smith, D. K. (1984). Practicing school psychologists: Their characteristics, activities, and populations served. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 798-810.
37.
Speece, D. L. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interactions: Bad rap or bad idea?The Journal of Special Education, 24, 139-149.
38.
Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Martens, B. K. (1984). Acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms: The influence of amount of teacher time, severity of behavior problem, and type of intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 95-104.
39.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Problems and issues in definition of learning disabilities. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 3-26). New York: Academic Press.
40.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (1988). Linking assessment to intervention. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional opportunities for all students (pp. 91-110). Washington, DC: Nation-al Association of School Psychologists.
