Effects of a Summarizing Strategy on Written Summaries of Children With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

In this single-subject study, we examined the effects of a summarizing strategy on the written summaries of children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs). Six students with EBDs in fifth and sixth grades learned a mnemonic-based strategy for summarizing taught through the self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) approach. Visual analyses were conducted, along with estimated effect sizes using quantitative methods at both the individual level and across cases. Visual analyses revealed evidence for a functional relation between the treatment program and quality points. Quantitatively, very large effects were noted for all six students. Anecdotal evidence suggested the students understood the purpose of the strategy and could independently recall the steps of the mnemonic by the end of the intervention. Results suggest that the strategy has the potential to improve the summary writing skills of students with EBDs. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Reading Interventions for Students With or At Risk of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review

“…Finally, it prompts them to sequence their notes. Similarly, another study paired SRSD with the mnemonic WIN, which supports the process of writing topic sentences, identifying important information, and numbering information and writing a summary (Saddler et al, 2017). Regardless of the additional mnemonics, all interventions including SRSD in the current synthesis focused on verbal or written summarization, which supports the comprehension of text.…”

“…As a result, QI 6.5, which requires at least three demonstrations of an effect, was not met. If we included all participants in the study (e.g., participants not identified with or at risk of ADHD), multiple studies would have met QI 6.5 (e.g., Crabtree, Alber-Morgan, & Konrad, 2010; Cullen et al, 2014; Ennis, 2016; Jozwik & Douglas, 2016; Saddler, Asaro-Saddler, Moeyaert, & Ellis-Robinson, 2017), resulting in a potential evidence base for instructional practices utilized in these studies. However, none of these studies met QIs for the target population of students with or at risk of ADHD; therefore, none of the practices utilized within the studies can be classified as EBPs for this population of students.…”

“…Five studies incorporated SRSD with additional strategies such as TWA, PLANS, and WIN (Ennis, 2016; Hedin et al, 2011; Johnson et al, 2012; Rogevich & Perin, 2008; Saddler et al, 2017). SRSD is a strategy with well-documented positive effects, specifically related to writing outcomes among students with EBD (e.g., Ennis & Jolivette, 2014; Mason, Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006).…”

“…Although only one SRSD study can be classified according to the criterion outlined by Cook and colleagues (2015) as exhibiting insufficient evidence of an EBP due to a lack of additional studies that met all QIs, it is crucial to note that two additional studies could not be combined with it to classify SRSD as potentially evidence based simply due to the lack of participants with or at risk of ADHD (Ennis, 2016; Saddler et al, 2017). Although both studies utilized rigorous single-case designs to investigate the effects of SRSD, they did not document three demonstrations of a positive effect required to meet QI 6.5 for students targeted in our review.…”

“…This lack of variability makes it difficult to generalize any of the findings to a larger population, making the external validity fairly weak (Onwuegbuzie, 2000). Because many of the studies (e.g., Crabtree et al, 2010; Cullen et al, 2014; Ennis, 2016; Jozwik & Douglas, 2016; Saddler et al, 2017) may have met the criterion to be classified an EBP given the presence of additional participants with or at risk of ADHD and three demonstrations of an effect, we could only identify DI as a potential EBP for these students. Future studies utilizing interventions included in this review (e.g., computer-based instruction, SRSD + TWA + PLANS, GO FASTER) with rigorous study design and a minimum of three students with or at risk of ADHD (if using a single-case design) are necessary to document sufficient evidence of EBPs in reading for this population.…”