Improving Reading Outcomes for Children with Learning Disabilities: Using Brief Experimental...

IMPROVING READING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN WITHLEARNING DISABILITIES: USING BRIEF EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

TO DEVELOP PARENT-TUTORING INTERVENTIONS

VALERIE J. GORTMAKER, EDWARD J. DALY III, MERILEE MCCURDY,MICHAEL J. PERSAMPIERI, AND MELANIE HERGENRADER

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA–LINCOLN

The present study assessed the effects of summer parent tutoring on 3 children with learningdisabilities using empirically derived reading interventions. Brief experimental analyses were usedto identify customized reading fluency interventions. Parents were trained to use the interventionstrategies with their children. Parents implemented the procedures during parent-tutoringsessions at home and results were measured continuously in high-word-overlap and low-word-overlap passages to determine whether generalization occurred. Parent and child satisfaction withthe procedures was assessed. Results demonstrated generalized increases in reading fluency inboth high-word-overlap and low-word-overlap passages as a function of parent tutoring. Also,acceptability ratings by children and their parents indicated that they viewed the interventions asacceptable and effective. Results are discussed in terms of structuring reading fluencyinterventions that promote generalization and maintenance of treatment effects.

DESCRIPTORS: brief experimental analysis, generalization, learning disability, parenttutoring, reading fluency

_______________________________________________________________________________

Learning to read is critical for a child’scurrent and future well-being (National Read-ing Panel, 2000), yet many children struggle tolearn to read. A recent study of the prevalence ofreading disability found that as many as 17% ofthe population may suffer from a disability(Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2003). The problem iscompounded by academic losses experienced bystudents over the summer months. Summer hasbeen correlated with a significant decrease inreading performance (Schacter, 2003). Childrenwith disabilities are subject to even greaterdeclines in academic performance during sum-mer vacation (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson,2001; Cooper, Nye, & Charlton, 1996), pre-sumably because of an absence of practice with

the very skills that set their more competentpeers apart from them.

One option to counteract adverse effects ofdecreased reading during the summer months isto assist parents in implementing empiricallybased interventions. Duvall, Delquadri, Elliott,and Hall (1992) found that parent tutoringduring the summer produced marked increasesin reading rates that generalized from home toschool. Parent-directed academic interventionsprovide opportunities to extend the learningenvironment beyond the school walls andacademic calendar (Christenson & Sheridan,2001). Children can benefit, however, only ifparents are guided in the selection andapplication of appropriate reading interventionsfor their children.

Brief experimental analysis has recentlyemerged as an approach for selecting academicinterventions. Brief experimental analysis meth-ods have been developed and investigated in theareas of reading, writing, spelling, and math(Daly, Martens, Dool, & Hintze, 1998; Daly,Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999;Eckert, Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002).

This study is based on a dissertation submitted by thefirst author in partial fulfillment of requirements for thedoctoral degree.

Correspondence should be sent to Valerie J. Gortmaker,Munroe-Meyer Institute, 985450 Nebraska Medical Center,Omaha, Nebraska 68198 (e-mail: [email protected]), or Edward J. Daly, III, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Educational Psychology, 33 Teachers College, Lincoln,Nebraska 68588 (e-mail: [email protected]).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.105-05

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2007, 40, 203–221 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 2007)

203

Investigations of brief experimental analyseshave shown that the effects of interventions maybe idiosyncratic across students (Daly et al.,1998, 1999), yet are stable over time (Eckert etal.). Brief experimental analysis is characterizedby single-case design elements with truncatedphases (when response increases are notobtained) and brief replications. The purposefor making the analyses brief is so that clinicianscan conduct the assessments efficiently.

Brief experimental analyses may be particu-larly useful in helping behavior analysts chooseacademic interventions for parents who wish totutor their children. In several recent studies,brief experimental analysiss have been con-ducted to identify customized reading interven-tions prior to parent tutoring (Daly, Shroder, &Robinson, 2001; Persampieri, Gortmaker,Daly, Sheridan, & McCurdy, 2006; Valleley,Evans, & Allen, 2002). However, only Persam-pieri et al. examined parent tutoring during thesummer months. Prior to treatment, Persam-pieri et al. assessed participants’ differentialresponsiveness to combinations of reward andinstructional strategies through brief experimen-tal analysis. The parents then applied theselected treatment repeatedly over time duringthe summer. Generalized reading fluency in-creases to high-word-overlap (HWO) passageswere obtained. However, the treatment in-volved numerous steps, and a componentanalysis was never conducted. A simpler in-tervention may have been equally effective.Also, generalization of effects beyond the HWOpassages was not examined.

Brief experimental analysis can be used toidentify simpler and more efficient readingintervention packages by eliminating unneces-sary instructional or motivational components.One way in which investigators have done thisis to progressively add intervention componentsuntil no further performance increases areobserved (Daly et al., 1999; Daly & Murdoch,2000). The last phase associated with a perfor-mance increase is used as the basis for selecting

reading interventions before conditions arereplicated for experimental control purposes.The other approach to identifying efficientcombinations of reading intervention compo-nents is to begin the analysis with a completetreatment package and dismantle it througha component analysis (Barnett, Daly, Jones, &Lentz, 2004). Intervention components aresequentially withdrawn until the fewest compo-nents necessary to improve reading performanceare identified (Daly, Persampieri, McCurdy, &Gortmaker, 2005). The advantage of thedismantling approach is that the initial treat-ment package can serve as a benchmark againstwhich reduced numbers of treatment combina-tions can be evaluated. For example, Daly et al.(2005) conducted brief experimental analysesthat examined the individual contribution ofinstructional and reward strategies after havingexamined their combined effects on studentperformance. The results were used as the basisfor generating customized reading interventionsthat were then applied over time for bothparticipants. This same strategy may be bene-ficial for parent-implemented treatments toensure that interventions are no more compli-cated than they need to be.

One of the weaknesses of reading interven-tion research is the lack of generalized improve-ments in student outcomes (Lyon & Moats,1997). Results are often measured in thematerials in which instruction is carried out.As such, the effects may not be generalizablebeyond the training conditions. Martens, Daly,Begeny, and VanDerHeyden (in press) describetwo ways in which stimulus generalization canbe observed for oral reading. First, with effectiveinstruction learners should come to read newlylearned words in novel texts. In this case, thelearner generalizes word reading to new stim-ulus conditions (i.e., identical words across textswith novel arrangements of words). Second,learners should come to read words that werenot directly taught during instruction. In thiscase, the newly acquired words do not share

204 VALERIE J. GORTMAKER et al.

identical stimulus properties with those in-structed, but may come from a stimulus set thatis functionally equivalent (e.g., along the linesof difficulty level, frequency of usage incurricula, or predictable phonetic properties).

If generalization is conceptualized in termsof proximity to original stimulus conditionsduring training, these forms of stimulusgeneralization represent two points along a con-tinuum of conditions in which newly acquiredresponses may appear. Some recent studies haveattempted to hold treatments to a higherstandard by measuring stimulus generalizationof treatment effects (Daly et al., 1999; Daly,Martens, Kilmer, & Massie, 1996). Manipulat-ing the amount of word overlap betweentraining and assessment passages is how theseinvestigations have operationalized stimulusgeneralization. Two passages that contain manyof the same words but that are written asdifferent stories are HWO passages. Twopassages that contain fewer of the same wordsbut that are of approximately equal difficultyand come from the same or a similar curriculumseries are low-word-overlap (LWO) passages.Operationalizing stimulus generalization in thisway makes it possible to investigate the degreeof generalized performance increases acrossdifferent points in the continuum of propertiesshared between training and assessment condi-tions (Martens et al., in press). Use of HWOpassages provides a sensitive method forestimating the degree to which instructionproduces generalized increases to training con-ditions that contain a relatively larger pro-portion of identical stimuli used during train-ing. Use of LWO passages provides a methodfor estimating the degree to which instructionproduces generalized increases to training con-ditions that contain functionally equivalent butindependent stimuli to those used duringtraining.

The purpose of the present study was toextend the literature that has assessed the impactof summer parent tutoring. Brief experimental

analyses were used to identify the most effectiveand parsimonious treatment for 3 children withlearning disabilities in reading using empiricallyderived reading interventions. Once the treat-ment was identified, parents were trained to useit. Next, parents conducted an instructional trialas a part of the brief experimental analysis todetermine whether the parent was able toachieve the same effect as the experimenterprior to independent parent tutoring. Parentsthen implemented the procedures during par-ent-tutoring sessions at home, and results weremeasured continuously in HWO and LWOpassages. Finally, parent and child satisfactionwas measured.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Participants were 3 students who hadcompeted third grade and were entering fourthgrade in the fall and their biological mothers.Rachel was a 9-year 5-month-old biracial girl.Angel was a 9-year 3-month-old Caucasian girlwho had been diagnosed with attention deficithyperactivity disorder. Misty was a 9-year 8-month-old Caucasian girl. All students hadbeen previously identified with a learningdisability in reading through a psychoeduca-tional evaluation that determined that thechildren qualified according to state eligibilitycriteria.

The first author conducted all analyses.Initial assessments occurred in the schoolpsychologist’s office at the elementary schoolfor all children. Further assessments andtraining sessions occurred at the participants’homes in order to accommodate the parents’scheduling and transportation constraints. Par-ents carried out the intervention procedures intheir homes.

Instructional and Assessment Materials

Instructional passages. Passages were takenfrom three basal reading series: the Ginnreading series (Clymer, Indrisano, Johnson,

PARENT-TUTORING INTERVENTIONS 205

Pearson, & Venezky, 1987); the Silver, Burdett,and Ginn reading series (Pearson et al., 1989),and from each child’s basal reading series usedin their school curriculum during the previousspring semester (i.e., Houghton & Mifflin,2004). Materials were retyped and adapted toreflect the level at which each student had beeninstructed during the previous school year.Readability scores were computed using theSpache formula (1974). Average readabilityacross all passages was 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.2)for Angel and 3.1 (range, 2.1 to 4.0) for Racheland Misty. All passages were approximately 100to 250 words in length.

HWO passages. Each basal reading passage(Clymer et al., 1987; Houghton & Mifflin,2004; Pearson et al., 1989) was rewritten tocreate a passage that had many of the samewords but constituted a different story. There-fore, each instructional passage had a singlecorresponding HWO passage. In this way,generalization of training effects could bemeasured. To determine the percentage of wordoverlap, the number of words appearing in bothpassages was divided by the total number ofwords in the instructional assessment passage.Average word overlap was 87% for Angel(range, 83% to 93%) and 90% for Racheland Misty (range, 83% to 96%). Averagereadability of HWO passages was 2.6 (range,2.3 to 3.2) for Angel and 3.0 (range, 2.1 to 4.0)for Rachel and Misty.

LWO passages. LWO passages were passagesthat were independent of instructional andHWO passages and were used to monitorprogress. Passages were taken from DynamicIndicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DI-BELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002). The averagereadability of LWO passages was 2.6 (range, 2.4to 2.7) for Angel and 2.9 (range, 2.8 to 3.1) forRachel and Misty.

Dependent Variables

Reading fluency. Correctly read words (CRW)per minute and errors per minute served asdependent variables. A word was scored as an

error each time it was omitted, mispronounced,or substituted, or if the student paused for 3 ormore seconds. CRW per minute is a reliableand valid measure of oral reading fluency(Shinn, Good, Knutson, & Tilly, 1992).

Consumer satisfaction. Parents’ subjectiveratings on the Behavior Intervention RatingSystem (BIRS; Von Brock & Elliott, 1987)were used to assess social validity at the end ofthe study. The BIRS is a 24-item Likert-typescale that yields the following factors: accept-ability, effectiveness, and time to effect. Thereliability and construct validity of the BIRSwere investigated by Von Brock and Elliott.Alpha coefficients of .97 were reported for thetotal scale, and .97, .92, and .87 for theacceptability, effectiveness, and time to effectfactors, respectively. Children were givena modified version of the Child’s InterventionRating Profile (CIRP) at the end of the study.The modification involved adding pictures ofa popular cartoon character. The CIRP is a five-item questionnaire and uses a 5-point Likert-type scale of children’s acceptability ratingranging from 1 (I disagree very much) to 5(I agree very much) (Elliott, 1988). The CIRPhas an average coefficient alpha of .86 (Elliott).

Interrater Agreement

The first author scored the reading probes.An independent trained observer scored readingprobes for interrater agreement purposes.Agreement was achieved when both observersscored the same word as either correctly orincorrectly read. Interrater agreement wascalculated by dividing the number of agree-ments by the number of agreements plusdisagreements and multiplying by 100%.Verbal and written explanations of the defini-tions of reading accuracy, fluency, and errorswere given to the independent observer, whothen coded sample tapes of curriculum-basedmeasurement reading probes for CRW perminute. The observer had to demonstrate atleast 90% interrater agreement with the exper-imenter on the training tapes before proceeding


to code the children’s reading for the study. Theindependent observer listened to 34% of theaudiotaped reading assessments (randomly cho-sen) conducted by the experimenter. The meaninterrater agreement was 92% (range, 61% to100%).

Experimental Conditions

In addition to a baseline condition, rewardand instructional components were used both inthe brief experimental analysis and duringparent tutoring. Reward and instruction wereinitially combined in the brief experimentalanalysis. A component analysis, involving onlysome of the reading strategies, also wasconducted as a part of the brief experimentalanalysis. The simplest yet most effective packagefor each student was used for parent tutoring.The following is a description of each of theconditions.

Baseline. Baseline served as a control condi-tion. No instruction was provided. Assessmentwas conducted in a LWO passage.

Reward. Tangible items (e.g., pens, balls,small games, candy, etc.) were offered forachieving accuracy and fluency performancegoals (Daly et al., 2005). A reward bagcontaining these items was presented by theresearcher, and the participant was allowed tochoose an item. Individual goals were de-termined based on the child’s best performancein a given passage to date. To earn a reward, theparticipant was told that she was required tobeat her last score, which meant that she had toread at least 30% more CRW per minute thanher previous best performance and committhree or fewer errors. When reward wascombined with instruction, assessment andreward were carried out in a passage that hadHWO with the instructional passage immedi-ately after instruction. When there was noinstruction prior to assessment, reward wascarried out in a LWO passage.

Rewards also were given for compliance withtutoring procedures. Each family was given

stickers and a calendar of the treatment dates.The child was rewarded by her mother witha sticker on the calendar each day they practicedreadings for 10 to 15 min.

Instruction. Instruction consisted of listeningpassage previewing (LPP), repeated readings(RR), phrase drill (PD) error correction, andsyllable segmentation (SS) error correction;these were applied to instructional passages.LPP and RR were always delivered together.During the LPP/RR condition, the story wasread to the student while she followed alongwith her finger (LPP; Daly & Martens, 1994).The student then reread the passage three times(RR; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). PD and SSalso were always delivered together. PD wasadministered after the first reading of a passage,and SS was administered after the secondreading. During the PD/SS condition, theexperimenter or parent highlighted any errorsmade by the student and read the word to thestudent. The student read each word aloud tothe experimenter or parent. The student thenread the sentence containing the error wordthree times aloud (PD; O’Shea, Munson, &O’Shea, 1984). When one or more words wereread incorrectly during the child’s secondreading of a passage, an index card was usedto cover words read incorrectly. The syllables ineach word were uncovered and read to thestudent. Next, the student read each of thesyllables as they were uncovered. Finally, thesyllables and the blended word were readindependently (SS; Daly et al., 2005).

Brief Experimental Analysis

After screening to identify HWO and LWOpassages of equal difficulty, the experimenter orparent conducted teaching trials (using thestrategies described above) in instructionalpassages. Immediately following each teachingtrial, the experimenter assessed the student’sperformance on HWO and LWO passages.

Treatment package and component analysis.Each child was first administered a treatmentconsisting of reward plus instruction. If it was


effective, a component analysis of the treatmentwas performed until the most robust, yet leastintrusive, intervention was determined. Thenext two teaching trials occurred in randomorder to determine if the child exhibited a skillor performance deficit (i.e., 1 child receivedreward first, and the other 2 children receivedinstruction first). The instruction condition wasadministered to determine if the child exhibiteda skill deficit, and reward was administeredalone to determine if the child exhibiteda performance deficit. If reward alone was aseffective as reward plus instruction, then a per-formance deficit was hypothesized. If instruc-tion alone was as effective as reward plus in-struction, then a skill deficit was hypothesized.

If instruction was found to be the mosteffective and efficient treatment, then thecomponents were further analyzed. Because itwas hypothesized that the participants woulddisplay reading fluency difficulties, the strategiesthat had the least effect on opportunities torespond were omitted first. Therefore, the error-correction procedures (PD/SS) were taken outof the package and an RR/LPP condition wasadministered. The most effective condition wasthen replicated along with a baseline condition.If the child improved her fluency during thereplication trial, the least intrusive conditionwas recommended to the parent as a potentiallyeffective intervention.

Parent validation. The final part of the briefexperimental analysis was to determine whetherthe parent could achieve the same performanceincrease as the experimenter for the treatmentidentified as the simplest but most effective inthe prior portion of the brief experimentalanalysis. Each parent conducted an instructionaltrial after being thoroughly trained in theintervention (see Parent Training below). Oncethe validation procedures were complete, theexperimenter then assessed student performancein an HWO passage to determine the effective-ness of the prescribed treatment as implementedby the parent. Scores were graphed and the

effect was deemed significant if CRW perminute in the HWO passage surpassed perfor-mance in the baseline condition and when itreached a level similar to the effects achieved bythe experimenter.

Parent Training

The first author trained parents individually.Training was conducted in one session at thechildren’s homes. The experimenter trainedeach parent to implement the customizedreading package. Training was conducted inthree steps with both parent and child present.First, the experimenter verbally described thecomponents of the intervention and answeredany questions the parent had. Second, theexperimenter modeled the intervention with thechild using passages that would not be usedduring any other portion of the study. Finally,the parent implemented the procedures withher child as the experimenter observed. Perfor-mance feedback was provided to parents as thetraining was in progress. Parents were requiredto perform the intervention with 100% accu-racy in the presence of the researcher beforetraining ceased. A structured protocol, whichalso served as a treatment integrity checklist,was provided to the parents. Parents wereinstructed to engage in the tutoring procedures3 to 5 days per week for 10 to 15 min persession.

Experimental Design and Procedure forParent Tutoring

A multiple-probe design across tasks (readingpassages) was used to evaluate the results of thereading program for each student with fourHWO passages that were rewritten from thechildren’s curricular reading series (HoughtonMifflin, 2004). Repeated measurements werecarried out across HWO passages initially toobtain baseline measurements on all passages.Then, repeated measurements across passagescontinued while treatment was introducedsequentially across passages, but never concur-rently. When treatment was terminated for


a given passage, repeated measurements revealedmaintenance of treatment effects for thatpassage. Experimental control was demonstrat-ed if the child’s reading fluency increased inHWO when and only when treatment wasintroduced. Improvement in HWO passageswas considered an indicator of stimulus gener-alization.

The generality of treatment effects was alsoexamined experimentally within a multiplebaseline across participants design. LWO pas-sages (i.e., DIBELS passages) were administeredrepeatedly to participants during baseline andparent tutoring. Introduction of parent tutoringwas staggered across participants. Experimentalcontrol was demonstrated if the children’sreading fluency increased in LWO when andonly when treatment was introduced. Improve-ment in LWO passages was considered anindicator of stimulus generalization. The pro-cedures in each phase of the experimentaldesign are presented below.

Baseline. No instruction (parent tutoring)was provided during baseline. The children readall four HWO passages and a randomly selectedLWO passage for 1 min to the experimenter.

Parent tutoring. Once parent training and thebrief experimental analysis were complete, theparents were instructed to conduct tutoringsessions 3 to 5 days per week for 4 weeks.Tutoring consisted of the interventions derivedfrom the brief experimental analysis. ForRachel, reward plus instruction was chosen.Therefore, in addition to repeated tutoringthroughout the week, Rachel received a rewardat the end of the week for exceeding her fluencygoal. For Angel and Misty, instruction waschosen. Instruction occurred in one story perweek following the procedures described pre-viously. The experimenter provided a newintervention protocol, tape, and story materialsafter each weekly assessment. Assessments wereconducted separately by the experimenter threetimes per week at the children’s homes.Performance in HWO passages was used to

evaluate tutoring across each of four instruc-tional passages (i.e., one passage per week), andperformance in LWO passages was used toevaluate the tutoring package across partici-pants. Each participant plotted her data onLWO passages following each assessment.

Treatment Integrity

All brief experimental analyses were audio-taped by the experimenter, and all homesessions were audiotaped by the parents. Anindependent trained evaluator scored treatmentintegrity of the brief experimental analysis, andthe experimenter scored treatment integrity ofparental implementation. Treatment protocols(available from the first author) were written ina checklist format, and the person scoringtreatment integrity indicated whether each stepwas followed accurately or not. The indepen-dent evaluator checked 100% of all briefexperimental analysis sessions. The mean per-centage of correctly implemented treatmentintegrity steps was 97% (range, 92% to100%). Tapes of parent-tutoring sessions werereviewed by the experimenter and compared tothe intervention protocol. The experimenterlistened to 60% of all parent-tutoring sessions.The treatment integrity of parental implemen-tation was 89% (range, 60% to 100%).

RESULTS

Brief Experimental Analysis and Parent Validation

Results of the brief experimental analyses aredisplayed in Figure 1. Rachel’s fluency in-creased from 62 CRW per minute in baselineto 88 CRW per minute in reward plusinstruction. Next, reward and instruction wereexamined separately. Although both interven-tions increased Rachel’s fluency more thanbaseline, neither intervention achieved themagnitude of effects of reward plus instruction.Therefore, the component analysis was termi-nated and reward plus instruction was replicat-ed. During the second trial Rachel surpassed herprevious improvements (107 CRW per min-


ute). It was concluded that she benefited froma treatment that included components for bothskill and performance deficits. Similar resultswere found when her mother implemented theintervention. With her mother as the tutor,

Rachel’s reading performance increased to 87CRW per minute in reward plus instructionduring the brief experimental analysis. Baselineresults remained stable throughout the briefexperimental analysis.

Figure 1. Correctly read words per minute during the brief experimental analysis and parent validation for Rachel,Angel, and Misty. BL 5 baseline; R+IN 5 reward plus instruction; IN 5 instruction; R 5 reward; LPP/RR 5 listeningpassage preview plus repeated readings.


Angel’s performance in reward plus instruc-tion led to considerable improvement. Herfluency increased from 19 CRW per minute inbaseline to 33 CRW per minute in reward plusinstruction. Next, reward and instruction wereexamined separately. In instruction, Angel’sperformance improved to 46 CRW per minute,whereas minimal changes occurred in reward(22 CRW per minute). Because the results forinstruction exceeded the results for the com-bined treatment (i.e., reward plus instruction),the components of the instructional packagewere further analyzed to assess effects ofinstruction without the error-correction proce-dures (LPP/RR). Little improvement was madeduring the LPP/RR condition (27 CRW perminute), suggesting that all instructional com-ponents, including error correction, were need-ed to improve Angel’s performance. Theoriginal instruction condition was replicatedand, again, her reading fluency improved (33CRW per minute). Angel also increased herreading performance after the parent instruc-tional trial. Following the parent-deliveredinstruction, performance increased to 54CRW per minute. As with Rachel, baselinewas stable throughout the brief experimentalanalysis.

During Misty’s brief experimental analysis,no improvement was detected following rewardplus instruction. Misty read 43 CRW perminute in baseline and 42 CRW per minutein reward plus instruction. Next, reward andinstruction were examined separately. No in-crease was found in the reward condition (43CRW per minute). In the instruction condi-tion, her fluency increased to 66 CRW perminute. Because the greatest results wereachieved in instruction, the components werefurther analyzed to assess effects of instructionwithout error correction (LPP/RR). No im-provement was found in this condition (38CRW per minute). The instruction conditionwas replicated, and Misty displayed similargains (66 CRW per minute). It was hypothe-

sized that all instructional components wereneeded for greatest improvement. WhenMisty’s mother conducted an instructional trial,her fluency increased to 61 CRW per minute.Results for baseline remained low in both cases.Again, as with the others, her baseline was stablethroughout the brief experimental analysis.

Positive results were obtained for all 3participants by both the experimenter andparents. Interestingly, all 3 were reading atsomewhat different levels during the initialscreening. Angel, who was the least proficientreader, showed the highest relative performanceincrease during parent validation. All parentsobtained performance increases with the em-pirically derived interventions, closely matchingthose of the experimenter. Confidence inexperimental control is strengthened by the factthat for all participants three replications of thechosen intervention produced similar results.

Effects of Parent Tutoring

HWO assessments. Rachel’s results are dis-played in Figure 2. Rachel read an average of65.5 CRW per minute with 3.4 errors duringbaseline across all passages. Based on the resultsof the brief experimental analysis, reward plusinstruction was delivered during parent tutor-ing. An immediate increasing trend and leveloccurred for CRW per minute for all HWOpassages. Although there are slight increasingtrends in baseline, all of the treatment datapoints clearly exceeded all of the subsequentbaseline data points. Average CRW per minutewas 108.8, and average numberof errors perminute was 2.0. Treatment effects were main-tained across all passages once intervention wasremoved.

Angel’s results are displayed in Figure 3.Angel read an average of 27.2 CRW per minutewith 12.8 errors during baseline across allpassages. Based on the results of the briefexperimental analysis, instruction was deliveredduring parent tutoring. Although Angel was notrewarded for an increase in fluency, she receivedreinforcement for completion of the parent-


tutoring procedures. The behavior program wasestablished due to Angel’s initial resistance tothe home reading program. It was collabora-tively decided with Angel and her mother thatshe would receive a prize (e.g., pens, balls, smallgames, candy, etc.) at the end of the week fromthe experimenter if she completed three or moreparent-tutoring sessions, as denoted by hersticker chart. Immediate changes in level and

increasing trends occurred for CRW per minutefor all four HWO passages. All of the treatmentdata points exceeded all of the baseline datapoints. Average CRW per minute was 51.2, andaverage number of errors per minute was 3.4.Once intervention was removed, treatmenteffects were largely maintained.

Misty’s results are displayed in Figure 4. Sheread an average of 42.5 CRW per minute and

Figure 2. Correctly read words per minute and errors per minute in HWO passages for Rachel.


made 8.1 errors during baseline across allpassages. Based on the results of the briefexperimental analysis, instruction was deliveredduring parent tutoring. An immediate changein level occurred for CRW per minute for allfour HWO passages, but the degree of increasevaried across passages. Although an increasingtrend was apparent in Passage 1 during baseline,all of the treatment data points exceeded all ofthe baseline data points, and a change in leveland trend occurred. Misty showed the greatestperformance increases in Passage 1. It is

interesting to note that these data were for theweek during which the parent carried out thetreatment three times. Smaller increases oc-curred in Passages 2, 3, and 4. During theseweeks, her mother carried out only one or twosessions per week. Increases in trend and levelare evident in Passages 1, 2 and 3, whereas onlya change in level is shown in Passage 4. AverageCRW per minute was 65.3, and averagenumber of errors per minute was 2.3. Oncethe intervention was removed, treatment effectswere maintained, with the exception of Passage

Figure 3. Correctly read words per minute and errors per minute in HWO passages for Angel.


2, in which slightly lower CRW per minutewere observed. Errors decreased immediately forall four passages with the introduction oftreatment.

All children showed increases in CRW perminute and decreases in errors across HWOpassages. All participants maintained 100%nonoverlapping data from baseline to treatmentin tutoring assessment passages for CRW perminute. Following the withdrawal of parenttutoring for each passage, levels of CRW per

minute were commensurate with or higher thantreatment levels than during baseline.

LWO assessment. Results of parent tutoring inLWO passages appear in Figure 5. To accom-modate the multiple baseline design, assessmentof LWO passages began 1 to 2 weeks earlierthan HWO assessments for Angel and Misty.Performance in baseline was relatively stable,with the exception of one extreme score inMisty’s baseline for CRW per minute. Readingrate increased and errors decreased during

Figure 4. Correctly read words per minute and errors per minute in HWO passages for Misty.


Figure 5. Correctly read words per minute and errors per minute in LWO passages for all participants.


parent tutoring for all participants. Changes inperformance correlated with the introduction oftreatment for each participant. Rachel read anaverage of 75.0 CRW per minute with 4.3errors per minute during baseline, 92.3 CRWper minute with 1.3 errors per minute duringparent tutoring, and 74.8 CRW per minutewith 2.2 errors per minute during maintenance.Results during parent tutoring were character-ized by a change in level for both CRW perminute and errors per minute, with the formerincreasing and the latter decreasing to near 0.Performance dropped off for CRW per minuteduring maintenance, and errors remained low.

Angel read an average of 24.8 CRW perminute with 13.8 errors per minute duringbaseline, 33.7 CRW per minute with 7.3 errorsper minute during parent tutoring, and 28.5CRW per minute with 9.3 errors per minuteduring maintenance. There were a steady in-creasing trend in CRW per minute anda decreasing trend in errors during treatment.Results during the maintenance phase werehighly variable for CRW per minute. Errorsremained at approximately the same level.

Misty read an average of 42.4 CRW perminute with 6.8 errors per minute duringbaseline, an average of 51.0 CRW per minutewith 3.1 errors per minute during parenttutoring, and an average of 48.0 CRW perminute with 5.7 errors per minute duringmaintenance. There was an increasing trend inCRW per minute; however, the results werequite variable. There was a reduction in numberof errors during parent tutoring. Duringmaintenance, a downward trend in CRW perminute occurred, and an increasing trend inerrors emerged.

Consumer satisfaction. Following completionof the study, each child completed the CIRP.The items on the CIRP were completed usinga 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representing veryacceptable. All children reported high acceptabil-ity of the reading intervention (mean item ratingof 4.6 for Rachel, 5 for Angel, and 4.6 for Misty).

Each participant’s mother completed theBIRS following the study. The items on theBIRS were completed using a 6-point Likert-type scale, with 6 representing very acceptable orvery effective. The BIRS generated four ratings:acceptability, effectiveness, time to effect, andan overall score. In general, all participants’mothers reported that the procedures were veryacceptable. Acceptability mean item scores were5.73 for Rachel’s mother, 5.93 for Angel’smother, and 4.8 for Misty’s mother. Parentsalso perceived the treatment procedures to bevery effective. Effectiveness mean item scoreswere 6 for Rachel’s mother, 5.71 for Angel’smother, and 4.86 for Misty’s mother. Parentsreported that they quickly saw a positive changein their child’s reading. Time to effect meanitem scores were 6 for Rachel’s mother, 5.5 forAngel’s mother, and 5 for Misty’s mother.Overall item ratings on the BIRS were 5.83 forRachel’s mother, 5.83 for Angel’s mother, and4.83 for Misty’s mother.

DISCUSSION

This study sought to increase oral readingfluency rates of 3 students with readingdisabilities through parent tutoring using in-tervention strategies that were not only empir-ically supported but also empirically derived foreach participant. All students received a custom-ized intervention package during home-basedparent tutoring after ensuring effectiveness oftreatment through parent validation. A multi-ple-probe design across passages was used toexamine the effects of parent tutoring onreading in passages that had high contentoverlap with instructional passages. A multiplebaseline across participants design was used toexamine tutoring effects in passages that hadlow content overlap with instructional passages.Results indicated that generalization to HWOand LWO reading materials occurred for allparticipants. Also, parents and children ratedthe efficiency and effectiveness of the treatmentas well as the student outcomes positively.


Tutoring results were consistently positiveacross children and were strikingly similar to theresults of the brief experimental analysis. Forexample, during the brief experimental analysisAngel read 21 CRW per minute and 20 CRWper minute in baseline with the experimenter andparent, respectively. During tutoring, Angel read26 CRW per minute on average during baseline.She read 46 and 54 CRW per minute in theHWO passages during the brief experimentalanalysis with the experimenter and parent,respectively. During parent tutoring, she read51 CRW per minute on average in the HWOpassages. The same pattern occurred for the otherparticipants. This finding supports previousresearch (e.g., Persampieri et al., 2006) thatsuggests that results of brief experimental analysiscorrelate with the magnitude as well as thedirection of subsequent treatment outcomes.

Most previous parent-tutoring studies useda fixed multicomponent intervention for allparticipants (e.g., Duvall et al., 1992). Morerecently, studies have begun to use briefexperimental analysis to validate an interventionpackage prior to parent tutoring (Persampieri etal., 2006; Valleley et al., 2002). The currentstudy extends work on brief experimentalanalysis through the application of a dismantlingprocedure to identify the most parsimonioustreatment package for each participant. Lessintrusive treatment packages were directlycompared with more complex treatments.Similar to results of other studies, individualdifferences were found across students, in thatvarious combinations of antecedent and conse-quential components were effective (Bonfiglio,Daly, Martens, Lin, & Corsaut, 2004; Eckert etal., 2002). Rachel responded best to a treatmentpackage that contained a combination ofinstructional and reward components. ForAngel and Misty, the instructional packagealone (without reward) sufficiently improvedreading fluency. This failure to improve with anadded reward condition may be best explainedby Angel’s and Misty’s slower reading rates and

lower accuracy levels during baseline, perhapssuggestive of a skill deficit (as opposed toa performance deficit; Skinner, 1998). Anec-dotally, Misty stated that she became extremelynervous when a reward was offered contingenton improved reading rate, suggesting that someintervention components may hinder treatmenteffects with some children and that the mostelaborate intervention may not be the mostfunctional. Thus, the results suggest thatinterventions derived from a brief experimentalanalysis and composed of the fewest compo-nents necessary may achieve at least the sameeffects as more complex interventions in somecases.

Parent tutoring produced measurable, gener-alized increases in several ways. The briefexperimental analyses conducted with eachstudent revealed generalization of effects toHWO passages relative to the LWO passagesassociated with baseline for at least onetreatment condition. During parent tutoring,students increased their overall fluency rates byan average of 29.4 CRW per minute anddecreased their errors by 5.5 words per minutein materials that had already been instructedduring school. In the LWO passages, fluencyincreases were not as striking. Nonetheless, theimprovements of 17.5 CRW per minute forRachel, 8.9 CRW per minute for Angel, and8.6 CRW per minute for Misty duringtreatment are remarkable considering that theaverage learning-disabled student completingthird grade would be expected to increase by 2to 3 CRW per minute in 4 weeks during thecourse of the normal school year with a strongintervention in place (Deno, Fuchs, Marston, &Jongho, 2001).

The obvious question at this point is whystudents were able to generalize from parenttutoring. It appears that stimulus generalizationis more likely when stimulus control extendsacross a broad array of stimulus conditions.Therefore, intervention components that pro-mote stimulus control for oral reading (i.e.,


student reading is under the control of the text)within the natural context for reading (i.e.,reading texts) and across texts are likely toimprove generalization of responding. In thecurrent study, several strategies were used,including differential reinforcement of fluentword reading for instances of generalization,teaching in the natural context (i.e., instructingstudents in passages), and frequent and repeatedpractice. Finally, every procedural effort wasmade to ensure effective practice at home. Thebrief experimental analysis served to guideselection of treatment and individually structureeach participant’s practice to produce thegreatest reading gains. Explicit training ofparent tutoring and repeated treatment integritychecks were used to increase proper implemen-tation of the intervention.

Although participants’ reading fluency in-creased in the LWO passages as a function ofintervention, the fact that responding decreasedfollowing the withdrawal of instruction suggeststhat responding did not change purely asa function of discriminative control. One wouldexpect that if increases in responding occurredonly as a result of increased stimulus control,behavior would not decrease when the in-tervention was withdrawn. The only differencebetween the treatment and maintenance phaseswas the presence or absence of parent tutoringconcurrent with assessment in the generalizationpassages by the experimenter. The tutoringsessions essentially functioned as an antecedentto student reading during assessment in LWOpassages. The contingencies for reading, how-ever, during these assessments were the samethroughout all phases of the study.

Because changes between phases (baseline,treatment, maintenance) do not appear to bepurely a result of discriminative control for thegeneralization passages, it is possible that thetutoring phase created an establishing operation(EO) that differentially affected respondingacross each phase. An EO is a motivationalvariable that momentarily alters the reinforcing

effects of a consequence without altering thecontingency for the behavior (Michael, 1982).For example, if the tutoring sessions or partic-ipant display of results for the experimenterincreased the reinforcing properties of assessmentconditions, then generalized fluency increasesmay be expected during the tutoring phase anddecreases may be expected during the mainte-nance phase when treatment was withdrawn (i.e.,no prior display of results was available as anantecedent). Possible reinforcing consequencesduring the generalization assessment includeparent attention and visible performance in-creases when the participant plotted the data.Another possible factor affecting the results couldhave been the frequency of assessments for eachphase. It should be noted that this interpretationis preliminary and requires further confirmation.However, it raises intriguing questions for futureresearch on the role of EOs in improvingacademic performance. For instance, what con-ditions are necessary during tutoring to evokegeneralized academic improvements? What roledoes individualized adult attention play duringa practitioner’s assessment of academic skills?Does the school year create EOs that are absentduring the summer, leading to declines inperformance during the summer?

The pattern of improvement followed bya decline in LWO passages when tutoring waswithdrawn may signal the need for sustainedpractice with children with reading disabilitiesto produce lasting and successful generalizedeffects. Summer programs may need to beextended throughout the entire summer toassure positive effects. For example, month-long summer reading programs may result inonly temporary effects, and improvements maynot be maintained when the program ends.Given the decreases in academic performanceexperienced by school-aged children during thesummer months (Cooper, Nye, & Charlton,1996; Schacter, 2003), especially in low-incomefamilies (Alexander et al., 2001; Cooper et al.),these programs may be vital for helping some


students to become successful readers. Briefexperimental analysis may provide educatorswith a methodology for identifying effective andmanageable reading interventions that can becarried out by parents during the summer.

Although an increase in reading fluency wasfound for all participants, differences in mag-nitude of improvement were noted acrossparticipants. The number of tutoring sessionsper week may have accounted for at least someof the effects. Rachel received an average ofthree tutoring sessions per week, but Mistyreceived an average of two tutoring sessions perweek. Furthermore, Angel’s substantial im-provements may also have been affected bythe higher frequency of tutoring sessions (3.5sessions per week on average). It should benoted that Angel also received reinforcement forcompleting three or more tutoring sessions perweek. Therefore, the degree of generalizedtreatment effects that are obtained for parenttutoring may also be a function of students’baseline proficiency levels and the frequency oftutoring sessions, among other things.

Several limitations should be noted wheninterpreting the results. This study did notmanipulate difficulty level of reading materials.Instead, students were tutored in stories they hadbeen taught during the previous academic schoolsemester. Different results may have beenobtained with novel materials at different readinglevels, but it is reasonable to assume that previouscurricular materials were an excellent choicebecause (a) all children displayed dramaticimprovements in oral reading rate and accuracyin HWO passages (in spite of the fact that theyhad previously received instruction in thosepassages) and (b) each child’s fluency assessedwith an independent reading series increased atgreater magnitudes than expected for studentswith learning disabilities (Deno et al., 2001).

Another limitation of the study is that it didnot examine effects on students’ comprehen-sion. As such, there is no guarantee that theirability to understand the texts they read was

improved. Furthermore, during the experimen-tal analysis all combinations of treatments werenot assessed with all students. Therefore, it isunknown whether the individualized treatmentprescribed for each child was more effectivethan other possible treatment combinations.Other combinations of strategies that targetchildren’s various levels of responding, such asaccuracy, fluency, and generalization, may haveresulted in greater effects than the prescribedpackage. For example, each reading interventioncould have been provided individually and thencombined with other components to assesseffects of all combinations of treatments. Onedrawback to this approach, however, is that itsignificantly prolongs the experimental analysis.

Students were frequently assessed on the samepassages during parent tutoring, which increasedopportunities to respond and may have increasedtreatment effects beyond those possibly obtainedif not probed repeatedly on the same passage. Inaddition, the frequent number of home visitsmade by the experimenter may have encouragedincreased tutoring sessions, in that each assess-ment provided a treatment integrity check.Although these frequent visits had obviousbenefits for the participants, different resultsmight have been obtained in situations in whichfewer or no visits occur. Without such frequentvisits, students and parents may have not been asmotivated to implement tutoring sessions withsuch a high degree of treatment integrity.Although the assessment sessions were brief, theywere frequent, which may not be feasible for thetypical practitioner. Furthermore, although thehome visits provided by the experimenterallowed participation by families without trans-portation, home visits are often not feasible ina school setting. It is possible, however, that thesimplicity of the reading strategies may be readilycarried out in homes without assessment from anoutside source. Nonetheless, the results of thisstudy strongly suggest that parent tutoringduring the summer months may be a valuableapproach to assisting children with reading


disabilities and that experimentally derivedtreatments may contribute to developing effec-tive but manageable reading interventions.

REFERENCES

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2001).Schools, achievement, and inequality: A seasonalperspective. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis,23, 171–191.

Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F.E., Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empiricallybased special service decisions from single-case designsof increasing and decreasing intensity. Journal ofSpecial Education, 38, 66–79.

Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Lin, L.R., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis ofreading interventions: Generalization across instruc-tional strategies, passages, and time. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 27, 111–114.

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools andfamilies: Creating essential connections for learning.New York: Guilford.

Clymer, T., Indrisano, R., Johnson, D. D., Pearson, P. D.,& Venezky, R. L. (1987). Ginn reading series.Lexington, MA: Ginn & Company.

Cooper, H., Nye, B., & Charlton, K. (1996). The effectsof summer vacation on achievement test scores: Anarrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educa-tional Research, 66, 227–268.

Daly, E. J., III, & Martens, B. K. (1994). A comparison ofthree interventions for increasing oral reading perfor-mance: Application of the instructional hierarchy.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 459–469.

Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Dool, E. J., & Hintze, J.M. (1998). Using brief functional analysis to selectinterventions for oral reading. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 8, 203–218.

Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J.,& Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysisfor identifying instructional components needed toimprove oral reading fluency. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 32, 83–94.

Daly, E. J., III, Martens, B. K., Kilmer, A., & Massie, D.R. (1996). The effects of instructional match andcontent overlap on generalized reading performance.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 507–518.

Daly, E. J., III, & Murdoch, A. (2000). Direct observationin the assessment of academic skills problems. In E. S.Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioralassessment in schools: Theory, research, and clinicalfoundations (2nd ed., pp. 46–77). New York:Guilford.

Daly, E. J., III, Persampieri, M., McCurdy, M., &Gortmaker, V. (2005). Generating reading interven-tions through experimental analysis of academic skills:Demonstration and empirical evaluation. SchoolPsychology Review, 34, 395–414.

Daly, E. J., III, Shroder, J., & Robinson, A. (2001).Testing treatments for oral reading fluency problems:Two case studies. Proven Practice, 4, 2–10.

Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Jongho, S.(2001). Using curriculum-based measurements toestablish growth standards for students with learningdisabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524.

Duvall, S. F., Delquadri, J. C., Elliott, M., & Hall, R. V.(1992). Parent-tutoring procedures: Experimentalanalysis and validation of generalization in oralreading across passages, settings, and time. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 2, 281–303.

Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daly, E. J., III, & Martens, B.K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A briefexperimental analysis of combining an antecedentintervention with consequences. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 35, 271–281.

Elliott, S. N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments:Review of variables that influence treatment selection.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 68–80.

Good, R. H., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS oralreading fluency passages for first through third grades(Technical Report No. 10). Eugene: University ofOregon.

Houghton-Mifflin reading series. (2004). Itasca, IL: River-side.

Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptualand methodological considerations in reading in-tervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities,30, 578–588.

Martens, B. K., Daly, E. J., III, Begeny, J. C., &VanDerHeyden, A. (in press). Behavioral approachesto education. In W. Fisher, C. Piazza, & H. Roane(Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis. NewYork: Guilford.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminativeand motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read:An evidence-based assessment of the scientific researchliterature on reading and its implications for readinginstruction. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

O’Shea, L. J., Munson, S. M., & O’Shea, D. J. (1984).Error correction in oral reading: Evaluating theeffectiveness of three procedures. Education andTreatment of Children, 7, 203–214.

Pearson, P. D., Johnson, D. D., Clymer, T., Indirsano, R.,Venezky, R. L., Baumann, J. F., et al. (1989). Silver,Burdett, and Ginn. Needham, MA: Silver, Burdett,and Ginn.

Persampieri, M., Gortmaker, V., Daly, E. J., III, Sheridan,S. M., & McCurdy, M. (2006). Promoting parent useof empirically supported reading interventions: Twoexperimental investigations of child outcomes. Behav-ioral Interventions, 21, 31–57.

Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeatedreading and reading fluency in learning disabledchildren. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188.


Schacter, J. (2003). Preventing summer reading declines inchildren who are disadvantaged. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 26, 47–58.

Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Neurobiolog-ical indices of dyslexia. In H. L. Swanson, K. R.Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learningdisabilities (pp. 514–531). New York: Guilford.

Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., III, Knutson, N., & Tilly, T.W. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oralreading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relationto reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.

Skinner, C. H. (1998). Preventing academic skills deficits. InS. T. Watson & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook ofchild behavior therapy (pp. 61–83). New York: Plenum.

Spache, G. D. (1974). Good reading for poor readers (rev.ed.). Champaign, IL: Garrard.

Valleley, R. J., Evans, J. H., & Allen, K. D. (2002). Parentimplementation of an oral reading intervention: Acase study. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24,39–50.

Von Brock, M. B., & Elliott, S. N. (1987). Influence oftreatment effectiveness information on the acceptabil-ity of classroom interventions. Journal of SchoolPsychology, 25, 131–144.

Received August 1, 2005Final acceptance October 13, 2006Action Editor, Kevin M. Jones


Improving Reading Outcomes for Children with Learning Disabilities: Using Brief Experimental...

Documents

Transcript of Improving Reading Outcomes for Children with Learning Disabilities: Using Brief Experimental...