Teacher-Delivered Strategies to Increase Students’ Opportunities to Respond: A Systematic Methodological Review

Abstract

We conducted this systematic review to map the literature and classify the evidence-based status of teacher-directed strategies to increase students’ opportunities to respond (OTR) during whole-group instruction across the K-12 continuum. Specifically, we conducted this review to determine whether OTR could be classified as an evidence-based practice according to Council for Exceptional Children’s Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education. We examined the extent to which 21 included studies addressed quality indicators and evidence-based practice standards using a modified, weighted criterion for methodologically sound studies. Three studies met all eight quality indicators and 11 studies met or exceeded 80% of quality indicators following a weighted criterion to define methodologically sound studies. Results indicated teacher-directed OTR strategy of response cards in K-12 school settings to be a potentially evidence-based practice. Educational implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

Functional Assessment–Based Interventions for Students With or At-Risk for High-Incidence Disabilities: Field Testing Single-Case Synthesis Methods

“…Specifically, for each QI ( n = 8), the number of components met within each indicator (range = 1–6) was summed and divided by the total number of components possible within each indicator. This weighted coding scheme has been utilized across a range of previous systematic reviews (Common et al, 2016; Lane, Bruhn, et al, 2009; Lane, Kalberg, & Shepcaro, 2009). Finally, we classified study effect and evidence base, as we describe subsequently.…”

A Systematic Review of the Evidence Base for Active Supervision in Pre-K–12 Settings

“…In each review, the researchers employed the weighted criterion to discern methodologically sound studies drawing on concerns first raised by Lane et al (2009) that too rigorous of criteria may lead to the unintended consequence of excluding strong studies and ultimately having fewer effective strategies, practices, and programs to be classified as evidence based. This reflects a growing trend in systematic reviews employing this criterion to emphasize how methodological rigor exists on a continuum ranging from studies having little or no methodological rigor to studies demonstrating superior methodological rigor (Common et al, 2019).…”

“…The first author was taught how to code for QIs using the Standards for EBP by two senior authors, one of whom developed the initial coding rubric and training procedures. Both senior authors have applied this quality appraisal coding protocol in published reviews (e.g., Common et al, 2019). Training consisted of independently coding three training articles (not included in this review) with ≥85% interrater agreement (IRA).…”

“…QI 6.1 was met if studies reported experimental control over the independent variable (IV). We determined this component could only be met if implementation fidelity (QI 5.1) was also met, as implementation fidelity is necessary to determine whether experimental control was truly achieved (Common et al, 2019). QI 6.2 was met if a study described baseline conditions in detail (e.g., who did what to whom, and under what conditions; Lane, Wolery, Reichow, & Rogers, 2006).…”

Systematic Screening for Behavior in K–12 Settings as Regular School Practice: Practical Considerations and Recommendations

“…Investing resources to support teachers in making small shifts in the instructional environment may benefit large numbers of students. Teachers might first refine low-intensity instructional delivery and classroom management procedures through strategies such as increasing their use of behavior-specific praise (Stormont & Reinke, 2009), precorrection, increasing students' opportunities to respond (Common, Lane, Cantwell, Brunsting, & Oakes, 2016), and building in instructional choice (Royer, Lane, Cantwell, & Messenger, 2016).…”