Done in Sixty Seconds: Further Analysis of the Brief Assessment Model for Academic Problems

Jones, Kevin M.; Wickstrom, Katherine F.

doi:10.1080/02796015.2002.12086174

Cited by 47 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, the FNR was based on an assumption that the presence of a performance deficit is indicated by a true 20% difference between the skill and performance conditions (Jones & Wickstrom, 2009; Noell et al, 2001). In practice, however, the true deficit is best represented by a potentially wide distribution of possible values, the shape of which is unknown.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False Discovery Rates When Engaging in Skill Versus Performance Deficit Analysis for Academic Instructional Planning

Solomon

Dawes

Duhon

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brief experimental analysis (BEA) is a well-researched approach to conducting problem analysis, where potential interventions are pilot tested using a single-subject alternating treatment design. However, its brevity may lead to a high frequency of decision-making errors, particularly in situations where one tested condition is rarely optimal for students (i.e., the base rate). The current study explored the accuracy of a specific variant of BEA, skill versus performance deficit analysis (SPA), across different variations of the basic BEA design, score difference thresholds, and reading and math curriculum-based measurements (CBMs). Findings indicate that the ABAB design provides a reasonable control of such error rates when using reading CBM, whereas subtraction CBM required the use of an ABABAB design. Such error rates could not be controlled, regardless of design, when using multiplication CBM. Implications for best practice in the use of BEA are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False Discovery Rates When Engaging in Skill Versus Performance Deficit Analysis for Academic Instructional Planning

Solomon

Dawes

Duhon

et al. 2018

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The teacher then read the whole passage out loud as the student followed silently along. Listening and repeated reading involved the student listening as the teacher read the passage out loud, with the student then repeatedly reading the passage out loud three to five times (e.g., Jones & Wickstrom, 2002; Valleley & Shriver, 2003; VanAuken, Chafouleas, Bradley, & Martens, 2002). A total of 153 participants (52.8%) contributed data for this intervention category.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial and Over-Time Effects of Fluency Interventions for Students With or At Risk for Disabilities

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors sought to (a) identify interventions that immediately increased the oral reading fluency of students with or at risk for disabilities, (b) estimate to what extent these gains maintained over time, and (c) evaluate whether particular characteristics of students (e.g., gender, disability status) predicted their response to fluency interventions. We used multilevel modeling to meta-analyze results from 44 single-participant studies involving 290 students. Results indicated that goal setting immediately increased fluency, and this gain continued over time. Word-level training was largely ineffective. Students with some types of disabilities (i.e., those with behavioral disorders or autism) responded significantly less well to interventions targeting fluency than did students with other types of disabilities (i.e., those with learning disabilities or visual impairments) and so may require more intensive and individualized fluency interventions.

show abstract

“…It is well understood that increasing accuracy and fluency for students with disabilities is more difficult and involves more time intensive interventions and individual support than necessary with normally achieving peers (Ehri & Wilce, 1983; Manis, Custodio, & Szeszulski, 1993; O’Connor, Swanson, & Geraghty, 2010; Reitsma, 1983; Torgesen, 2000, 2004). Several researchers suggest that children with disabilities differentially benefit from various methods of reading fluency instruction, depending upon individual characteristics (e.g., Daly, Martens, Hamler, & Dool, 1999; Eckert, Ardoin, Daisey, & Scarola, 2000; Jones & Wickstrom, 2002). Therefore, it is likely that strategies used with typical readers may not necessarily benefit students with disabilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Access to General Education Curriculum

Coulter

Lambert

2015

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of preteaching key words on accuracy and fluency in connected text were examined with three fifth-grade participants identified with learning disability and reading two grade levels below their same age peers. Researchers incorporated a multiple baseline design (i.e., Baseline and Wordlist Intervention) and found that preteaching increased accuracy in connected text overall and increased fluency to some extent. The technique required minimal instructional support while providing participants with access to general education curriculum. Words that were pretaught generalized to unfamiliar passages that contained the key words 14 days after the intervention concluded.

show abstract

Done in Sixty Seconds: Further Analysis of the Brief Assessment Model for Academic Problems

Cited by 47 publications

References 17 publications

False Discovery Rates When Engaging in Skill Versus Performance Deficit Analysis for Academic Instructional Planning

False Discovery Rates When Engaging in Skill Versus Performance Deficit Analysis for Academic Instructional Planning

Initial and Over-Time Effects of Fluency Interventions for Students With or At Risk for Disabilities

Access to General Education Curriculum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About