Brief experimental analysis (BEA) is a quick method used to identify the function of student learning difficulties and match effective interventions to students’ needs. Extensive work has been done to explore the use of this methodology to determine effective reading interventions; however, a smaller number of published studies have examined the use of BEAs in math. The purpose of the current review was to identify all studies that have used BEA methodology in math. Fifteen studies that included 63 participants and used BEA methodology to identify the most effective math intervention for students were located. Results of the synthesis indicate that the majority of BEAs compared skill and performance interventions on computational fluency; however, the methodology across the included studies varied. Strengths and limitations of the research, in addition to implications for research and practice, are discussed.
AndersenM. A.DalyE. J.YoungN. D. (2013). Examination of one-trial brief experimental analysis to identify reading fluency interventions. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 403–414.
2.
AshcraftM. H.KrauseJ. A., (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 243-248.
3.
BackmanC. L.HarrisS. R.ChisholmJ. M.MonetteA. D. (1997). Single-subject research in rehabilitation: A review of studies using AB, withdrawal, multiple baseline, and alternating treatments design. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78, 1145–1153.
4.
BarlowD. H.HayesS. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
5.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.JonesK. M.LentzE. L. (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.
6.
BurnsM. K.CoddingR. S.BoiceC. H.LukitoG. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83.
7.
BurnsM. K.GanuzaZ. M.LondonR. M. (2009). Brief experimental analysis of written letter formation: Single-case demonstration. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 20–34.
8.
BurnsM. K.TaylorC. N.Warmbold-BrannK. L.PreastJ. L.HospJ. L.FordJ. W. (2017). Empirical synthesis of the effect of standard error of measurement on decisions made within brief experimental analyses of reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 640–654.
9.
BurnsM. K.WagnerD. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37, 126–136.
10.
CarnineD.SilbertJ.KameenuiE. J. (1990). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
11.
ChristT. J.ScullinS.TolbizeA.JibanC. L. (2008). Implication of recent research: Curriculum-based measurement of math computation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 198–205.
12.
Coolong-ChaffinM.WagnerD. (2015). Using brief experimental analysis to intensify tier 3 reading interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 193–200.
13.
DalyE. J.BonfiglioC. M.MattsonT.PersampieriM.Foreman-YatesK. (2006). Refining the experimental analysis of academic skills deficits: Part II. Use of brief experimental analysis to evaluate reading fluency treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 323–331.
14.
DalyE. J.MartensB. K.HamlerK. R.DoolE. J.EckertT. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83–94.
15.
DalyE. J.MartensB. K.KilmerA.MassieD. R. (1996). The effects of instructional match and content overlap on generalized reading performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 507–518.
16.
DalyE. J.WittJ. C.MartensB. K.DoolE. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.
17.
EckertT. L.ArdoinS. P.DalyE. J.MartensB. K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271–281.
18.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
GearyD. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 32, 250–263.
20.
HaringN. G.LovittT. C.EatonM. D.HansenC. L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
21.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.KellerL. A. (2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need?School Psychology Review, 31, 514–528.
22.
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, 162–179.
23.
JonesK. M.WickstromK. F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychology Review, 31, 554–568.
24.
KilgusS. P.Riley-TillmanT. C.KratochwillT. R. (2016). Establishing interventions via a theory-driven single case design research cycle. School Psychology Review, 45, 477–498.
25.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R.HornerR. H., (2018). Negative results: Conceptual and methodological dimensions in single-case intervention research. Remedial and Special Education, 39(2), 67-76.
26.
LentzF. E. (1988). Effective reading interventions in the regular classroom. In GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E.CurtisM. L. (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 351–370). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
27.
MartensB. K.GertzL. E. (2009). Brief experimental analysis: A decision tool for bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 92–99.
28.
McComasJ. J.BurnsM. K. (2009). Brief experimental analyses of academic performance: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 1–4.
29.
McComasJ. J.WackerD. P.CooperL. J.AsmusJ. M.RichmanD.StonerB. (1996). Brief experimental analysis of stimulus prompts for accuracy responding on academic tasks in an outpatient clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 397–401.
30.
MellottJ. A.ArdoinS. P. (2019). Using brief experimental analysis to identify the right math intervention at the right time. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s10864-019-0934.
31.
MongM. D.DoggettR. A.MongK. W.HeningtonC. (2012). An evaluation of the math to mastery intervention package with elementary school students in a school setting. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 13, 61–79.
32.
MullisI. V.MartinM. O.FoyP.AroraA. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. (Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
NoellG. H.FreelandJ. T.WittJ. C.GansleK. A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 335–355.
37.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
38.
PoncyB. C.SkinnerC. H. (2011). Enhancing first-grade students’ addition fact-fluency using classwide cover-copy-compare, a sprint, and group rewards. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 1–20.
39.
SkinnerC. H.McLaughlinT. F.LoganP. (1997). Cover, copy, and compare: A self-managed academic intervention effective across skills, students, and settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 295–306.
40.
SolomanB. G.DawesJ. M.DuhonG. J.PoncyB. C. (2018). False discovery rates when engaging in skill versus performance deficit analysis for academic instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 1–10. doi:10.1177/1534508418808365.
41.
SullivanA. L.OsherD., (2019). IDEA’s double bind: A synthesis of disproportionality policy interpretations. Exceptional Children, 85(4), 395-412.
42.
StraitG. G.SmithB. H.PenderC.MaloneP. S.RobertsJ.HallJ. D. (2015). The reliability of randomly-generated math curriculum-based measurements. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40, 247–253.
43.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BurnsM. K. (2005). Using curriculum-based assessment and curriculum-based measurement to guide elementary mathematics instruction: Effect on individual and group accountability scores. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 15–31.
44.
VollmerT. R.MarcusB. A.RingdahlJ. E.RoaneH. S. (1995). Progressing from brief assessments to extended experimental analyses in the evaluation of aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 561–576.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
