One of the most fundamental math skills for students to learn is basic computational skills. Students who have difficulty learning math skills may benefit from representational approaches, such as TouchMath. A multiprobe, multiple baseline, across-participants design was used in this study to investigate the use of TouchMath with students with physical disabilities. The study was designed to determine the effectiveness of this strategy on the students’ ability to solve basic addition problems with sums to 20. All students were successful in reaching the criterion, with high percentages of correct responses using the TouchMath strategy to answer simple addition problems. Data were analyzed by graphic visual analysis and calculation of the percentage of nonoverlapping data. Generalization and maintenance data supported the effectiveness of this strategy.
BabbittB. C.MillerS. P. (1996). Using hypermedia to improve the mathematics problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 391–401.
2.
BarnesM. A.WilkinsonM.KhemaniE.BoudesquieA.DennisM.FletcherJ. M. (2006). Arithmetic processing in children with spina bifida: Calculation accuracy, strategy use, and fact retrieval fluency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 174–187.
3.
BullockJ. K. (1991). TouchMath number concepts kit (4th ed.). Colorado Springs, CO: Innovative Learning Concepts.
4.
CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235–245.
5.
CaseL. P.HarrisK. R. (1992). Improving the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self-regulated strategy development. Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–19.
6.
CihakD. F.FoustJ. L. (2008). Comparing number lines and touch points to teach addition facts to students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 131–137.
7.
DennisM.BarnesM. (2002). Math and numeracy in young adults with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21, 141–155.
8.
DevP. C.DoyleB. A.ValenteB. (2002). Labels needn’t stick: “At-risk” first graders rescued with appropriate intervention. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 327–332.
9.
DurisA. L. (2002). Using TouchMath for students with physical impairments to teach and enhance beginning math skills. Journal of the Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Physical and Health Disabilities, 21, 9–15.
10.
EvertsR.PavlovicJ.KaufmannF.UhlenbergB.SeidelU.NedeltchevK.. (2008). Cognitive functioning, behavior, and quality of life after stroke in childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 14, 323–338.
11.
FrenchK. (1995). Mathematics performance of children with spina bifida. Journal of the Council for Exceptional Children, Division for Physical and Health Disabilities, 14, 9–27.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475.
13.
FurnerJ. M.YahyaN.DuffyM. L. (2005). Teach mathematics: Strategies to reach all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 16–23.
14.
GaneshR.DeenadayalanM.JanakiramanL.ViswanathanV. (2006). Pediatric strokes: A hospital based observation. Journal of Pediatric Neurology, 4, 41–44.
GriffinS.CaseR. (1997). Rethinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3, 1–49.
17.
HellerK. W. (2009). Learning and behavioral characteristics of students with physical, health, or multiple disabilities. In HellerK. W.ForneyP. E.AlbertoP. A.BestS. J.SchwartzmanM. N. (Eds.), Understanding physical, health, and multiple disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 18–34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
18.
HellerK. W.GarrettJ. T. (2009). Cerebral palsy. In HellerK. W.ForneyP. E.AlbertoP. A.BestS. J.SchwartzmanM. N. (Eds.), Understanding physical, health, and multiple disabilities (2nd ed.. pp. 72–93). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
19.
HoonA. H. (2005). Neuroimaging in cerebral palsy: Patterns of brain dysgenesis and injury. Journal of Child Neurology, 20, 936–939.
20.
HoulistonM. J.TaguriA. H.DuttonG. N.HajivassiliouC.YoungD. G. (1999). Evidence of cognitive visual problems in children with hydrocephalus: A structured clinical history-taking strategy. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41, 298–306.
21.
IddonJ. L.MorganD. J.LovedayC.SahakianB. J.PickardJ. D. (2004). Neuropsychological profile of young adults with spina bifida with or without hydrocephalus. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 75, 1112–1118.
22.
JacobsR.NorthamE.AndersonV. (2001). Cognitive outcome in children with myelomeningocele and perinatal hydrocephalus: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 389–405.
23.
JenksK. M.MoorJ.LieshoutE.MaathuisK.KeusI.GorterJ. (2007). The effect of cerebral palsy on arithmetic accuracy is mediated by working memory, intelligence, early numeracy, and instruction time. Developmental Neuropsychology, 32, 861–879.
24.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Multiple-baseline designs. In Single-case research designs (pp. 126–151). New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Multiple baseline designs. In Single-case designs for educational research (pp. 150–162). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.
27.
LantzE. R.MeyersP. M. (2008). Neuropsychological effects of brain arteriovenous malformations. Neuropsychological Review, 18, 167–177.
28.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 58–74.
29.
PueyoR.JunquéC.VendrellP. (2003). Neuropsychologic differences between bilateral dyskinetic and spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of Child Neurology, 18, 845–850.
30.
RosenbaumP. (2003). Cerebral palsy: What parents and doctors want to know. British Medical Journal, 326, 770–974.
31.
SankarC.MundkurN. (2005). Cerebral palsy—Definition, classification, etiology and early diagnosis. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 72, 865–868.
32.
ScottK. S. (1993). Multisensory mathematics for children with mild disabilities. Exceptionality, 4, 97–111.
33.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastroG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
34.
SimonR.HanrahanJ. (2004). An evaluation of the TouchMath method for teaching addition to students with learning disabilities in mathematics. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 191–209.
35.
SreenanC.BhargavaR.RobertsonC. M. T. (2000). Cerebral infarction in the term newborn: Clinical presentation and long-term outcome. Journal of Pediatrics, 137, 351–355.
36.
TournakiN. (2003). The differential effects of teaching addition through strategy instruction versus drill and practice to students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 449–458.
37.
UbertiH. Z.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2004). Check it off: Individualizing a math algorithm for students with disabilities via self-monitoring checklists. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 269–275.
38.
WhiteD. A.ChristS. E. (2005). Executive control of learning and memory in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 920–924.
39.
WisniewskiZ. G.SmithD. (2002). How effective is TouchMath for improving students with special needs academic achievement on math addition Mad Minute timed tests? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469445).
