Person Completing the Form
4. The student is expected to provide a correct response to the fact presented within 2 seconds 5 Now, the response time is reduced to 2 seconds.
6. The interventionist says, “Today, we are going to practice the facts we practiced yesterday, but you have to answer faster within 2 seconds.”
Subsequent Iterations
1. Three new target facts are chosen from missed problems on the Pretest and are checked prior to the iteration to make sure they are still unknown to the student.
2. The three target facts previously rehearsed in the first iteration now become the first three Fluent facts, replacing three of the previously used Fluent facts.
3. Three new fluent facts are selected randomly from the master Fluent stack. 4. Practice sequence is completed in the same way as the previous iteration.
5. For the first session in each practice iteration, the student is expected to provide the correct response for the fact presented within 3 seconds, and for the second session in each iteration, the student is expected to prove the correct response within 2 seconds.
Note: Three target facts chosen for each iteration will become the first three fluent facts in the subsequent iteration until they are replaced with new fluent facts (i.e., they cycle out of practice several sessions later.) At the beginning of each day’s session (excluding the first session of the first iteration), the student is assessed on retention of all nine facts practiced during the previous day’s session. Each fact is presented one by one to the student. Facts that a student can recall correctly within 2 seconds are considered retained, and feedback is given to the student on their performance (i.e., the number of facts recalled in 2 seconds). At the end of each iteration (i.e., after two consecutive sessions), a 2-minute timed probe on all 100 subtraction facts is
administered. The student’s performance on the 2-minute timed probe is shown to the student on a graph at the beginning of the first session of the next iteration
APPENDIX K
Incremental Rehearsal Treatment Integrity Checklist
Date: Observer:
Iteration: Student:
Before Intervention Yes No Notes
1. The facts selected for practice are verified whether they are still fluent and target facts before rehearsal and replaced with back-up facts if required (only at the beginning of the first session).
First session/Second session (circle the appropriate session)
Modeling
2. The first target fact and its correct response modeled. 3. The student practices with the interventionist. The interventionist says the
fact without the answer. The student is prompted to give a correct response.
4. The interventionist repeats. Says the fact and the correct response. 5. The student is asked to restate the subtraction fact orally and provide the
correct answer.
6. The target fact is practiced until the student can say the correct response
when the interventionist shows the card without any prompt.
Rehearsal
7. (The student is expected to provide correct response for the fact presented within 3 s for the first session and within 2 s for the second session.)
8. The first target fact is presented, the student answers aloud. 9. When student misses a fact or fails to answer within the required seconds,
the interventionist models the fact (statement and answer), and the student reads the statement and answer correctly. The interventionist shows the fact again that is face down and the student says the correct answer.
10. The first fluent fact is presented, the student answers it correctly. 11. The first target card is presented again, the student answers it correctly.
12. The first fluent fact is presented.
14. The first target fact is presented again. 15. The sequence of first target fact with the six fluent facts completed 16. The first fluent fact replaced with first target fact, the second fluent fact
replaced with first fluent fact and so on, and last fluent fact is removed.
17. The first target fact replaced with second target fact. 18. The second target fact modeled as the first target fact. 19. The second target fact rehearsed as the first target fact. 20. The sequence of presenting the second target fact with the six fluent facts is
completed.
21. The second target fact is now thefirst fluent fact; the first fluent fact (i.e.,
the old first target fact) is the second fluent fact; the last fluent fact is removed.
22. The third target fact is modeled & rehearsed. 23. The sequence of presenting the third target fact with the six fluent facts is
completed.
24. The order of fact presentation is altered in the second session. The third
target fact is introduced first, followed by the second target fact, and, finally, the first target fact.
Assessment
25. Beginning of session (excluding the first session of the first iteration), the student is assessed on retention of all nine facts practiced during the previous day’s session. Each fact presented one by one.
26. Feedback on the number of facts recalled within the required seconds is given to the student (excluding the first session of the first iteration).
27. A 2-minute timed probe on all 100 subtraction facts is administered (only
at the end of second session).
28. The student’s performance on the 2-minute timed probe is shown to the
student on a graph (only at the beginning of the first session– excluding the first session of the first iteration).
Total
Total Fidelity: _____ (# yes) /23 * 100 = _____% fidelity of implementation (First Session of First Iteration)
Total Fidelity: _____ (# yes) /26 * 100 = _____% fidelity of implementation (First Session)
REFERENCES
Allsopp, D. H., Lovin, L. H., & van Ingen, S. (2007). Teaching mathematics meaningfully: Solutions for reaching struggling learners (2nd ed.). Brookes. Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient
teaching. Guilford.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. Baroody, A. J. (2006). Why children have difficulties mastering the basic number
combinations and how to help them. Teaching Children Mathematics, 13(1), 22- 31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41198838
Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N. P., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why can't Johnny remember the basic facts? Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 69-79.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.45
Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 163-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393163
Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. (pp. 396-401). Wiley. https://bjorklab.psych. ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2016/07/RBjork_1988.pdf
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687
rehearsal to teach letter identification to a preschool-age child. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6(2), 124-134.
Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148-157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290101900204
Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175.
https://www.academia.edu/29718968/
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to increase fluency of single-digit multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28(3), 237-249.
Burns, M. K., Aguilar, L. N., Young, H., Preast, J. L., Taylor, C. N., & Walsh, A. D. (2019). Comparing the effects of incremental rehearsal and traditional drill on retention of mathematics facts and predicting the effects with memory. School Psychology, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000312
Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284-292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087838
acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83.
Burns, M. K., & Dean, V. J. (2005). Effect of acquisition rates on off-task behavior with children identified as having learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 273-281. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126966
Burns, M. K., & Sterling-Turner, H. (2010). Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance of the skill. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 126-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20458 Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of
incremental rehearsal using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(3), 185-202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-012-9160-2
Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Maki, K. E., & Kwong, E. (2016). Effect of modifying intervention set size with acquisition rate data while practicing single-digit multiplication facts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(3), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415593529
Cates, G. L. (2005). A review of the effects of interspersing procedures on the stages of academic skill development. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14(4), 305-325. Cates, G. L., & Erkfritz, K. N. (2007). Effects of interspersing rates on students’
performance on and preferences for mathematics assignments: Testing the discrete task completion hypothesis. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 615‐625. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20251
Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance. An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 23-34.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022318321416
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Codding, R. S., Archer, J., & Connell, J. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavior Education, 19, 93-105.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9
Codding, R. S., Burns, M. K., & Lukito, G. (2011). Meta-analysis of math basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
Cook, B. G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J. K., Landrum, T. J., McWilliam, R. A., Tankersley, M., & Test, D. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220-234. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0741932514557271
items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 213-235.
Cooke, N. L., & Reichard, S. M. (1996). The effects of different interspersal drill ratios on acquisition and generalization of multiplication and division facts. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 124-142.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for exceptional children standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
https://www.cec.sped.org/~/media/Images/Standards/CEC%20EBP%20Standards %20cover/CECs%20Evidence%20Based%20Practice%20Standards.pdf
Cozad, L. E., & Riccomini, P. J. (2016). Effects of digital-based math fluency interventions on learners with math difficulties: A review of literature. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 5(2), 1-19.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127743.pdf
Cumming, J., & Elkins, J. (1999). Lack of automaticity in the basic addition facts as a characteristic of arithmetic learning problems and instructional needs.
Mathematical Cognition, 5(2), 149-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467999387289
Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 562-581.
The Council for Exceptional Children. https://www.cehd.umn.edu/EdPsych/ RIPS/Documents/Data-Based%20Program%20Modification-
%20A%20Manual.pdf
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303
DuBois, M. R., Volpe, R. J., & Hemphill, E. M. (2014). A randomized trial of a computer-assisted tutoring program targeting letter-sound expression. School Psychology Review, 43(2), 210-221. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02796015.2014.12087446
Eckert, T. L., Hier, B. O., Hamsho, N. F., & Malandrino, R. D. (2017). Assessing children’s perceptions of academic interventions: The Kids Intervention Profile. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 268-281.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000200
Endrew F., v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U. S. ____ (2017).
Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2010). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52(2). 187-201. https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1212&context=tpr
procedure on learning disabled students’ sight-word reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 49-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510261
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493-513.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs. D. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 564-574.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350060701
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Gilbert, J. K. (2019). Does the severity of student’s pre- intervention math deficits affect responsiveness to generally effective first-grade intervention? Except Child, 85(2), 147-162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782628
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79-92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2547080/pdf/nihms50073.pdf Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., &
Hamlett, C. L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with
mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89-100. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Zumeta, R. O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A
randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 561-576. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0014701
Garcia, D., Joseph, L. M., Alber-Morgan, S., & Konrad, M. (2014). Efficiency of oral incremental rehearsal versus written incremental rehearsal on students’ rate, retention, and generalization of spelling words. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 8(2), 113-129.
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00222194040370010201 Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007).
Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78(4), 1343-1359. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206-223. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0025398
students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 38, 293- 304. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00222194050380040301
Goldman, S. R., & Pellegrino, J. W. (1987). Information processing and educational microcomputer technology: Where do we go from here? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(3), 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948702000302 Haegele, K., & Burns, M. K. (2015). Effect of modifying intervention set size with
acquisition rate data among students identified with a learning disability. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 33-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9201-0 Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. (2001). Performance across different
areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 615-626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.93.3.615
Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23-40). Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Hasselbring, T. S. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20(6), 1-7.
Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1987). Developing automaticity. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 19(3), 30 -33.
use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
Hulac, D. M., Dejong, K., & Benson, N. (2012). Can students run their own
interventions?: A self-administered math fluency intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 526-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21614
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
Isaacs, A. C., & Carroll, W. M. (1999). Strategies for basic-facts instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(9), 508-515.
January, S. A., Lovelace, M. E., Foster, T. E., & Ardoin, S. P. (2017). A comparison of two Flashcard interventions for teaching sight words to early readers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26(2), 151-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9263- 2
Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393170
Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003a). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00032-8
Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003b). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74(3), 834-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00571
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 850-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939 Jordan, N. C., & Montani, T. O. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and problem solving: A
comparison and children with specific and general mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 624-634.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000606
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Hanich, L. B. (2002). Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 586-597.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.586
Joseph, L., Eveleigh, E., Konrad, M., Neef, N., & Volpe, R. (2012). Comparison of the efficiency of two flashcard drill methods on childrens' reading performance. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(4), 317-337.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.669742
Kang, S. H. K. (2016). Spaced repetition promotes efficient and effective learning: Policy implications for instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 3(1), 12-19. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2372732215624708
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of knowledge base on critical instructional issues. (pp. 281-326). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Allyn & Bacon.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single- case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 122–144. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0017736
Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., III, & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 781-792. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-781
Landauer, T. K., & Bjork, R. A. (1978). Optimum rehearsal patterns and name learning. In M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of
memory. (pp. 625-632). Academic Press. https://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/13/2016/07/Landauer_RBjork_1978.pdf
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1-28. ttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
Logan, G. D., & Klapp, S. T. (1991). Alphabet mathematics: Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 179-195.
Logan, P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students’ perceptions of a mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322‐331.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088988
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Devlin, K. T., & McKenney, S. J. (2008). Is it a fact? Timed arithmetic performance of children with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) varies as a function of how MLD is defined. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 318-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982403
MacQuarrie, L. L., Tucker, J. A., Burns, M. K., & Hartman, B. (2002). Comparison of retention rates using traditional, drill sandwich, and incremental rehearsal flashcard methods. School Psychology Review, 31, 584-595.
McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2011). The taped problems intervention: Increasing the math fact fluency of a student with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26(3), 276-284. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ959019.pdf
McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay
intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20, 129-147. https://doi.org/ 10.1300/J370v20n02_08
integrity of school-based interventions with children in the journal of applied behavior analysis 1991-2005. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(4), 659- 672. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2007.659-672
McVancel, S. M., Missall, K. N., & Bruhn, A. L. (2018). Examining incremental rehearsal: Multiplication fluency with fifth-grade students with math IEP goals. Contemporary School Psychology, 22, 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688- 018-0178-x
Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035524
Mule, C. M., Volpe, R. J., Fefer, S., Leslie, L. K., & Luiselli, J. (2015). Comparative effectiveness of two sight-word reading interventions for a student with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 304–316.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Principles- and-Standards/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics
(J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell, Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press.
Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sightreading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(4), 738. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-738
Neuman, S. B., & McCormick, S. (1995). Single-subject experimental research: Applications for literacy. International Reading Association.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED381758.pdf
Nist, L., & Joseph, L. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first graders word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 294-308.
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. J. (2009). An improved effect size for single case research: Non Overlap of All Pairs (NAP). Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011a). Effect Size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011b). Combining non-