Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition ...994/fulltext.pdf · Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with B rief Experimental Analysis in Two Children

Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with Brief

Experimental Analysis in Two Children with Brain Injuries

A Thesis Presented

by

John Racine

The Department of Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Science

in the field of

Applied Behavior Analysis

Northeastern University

Boston, MA

May 2012

Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies ii

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School

Thesis Title: Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with Brief


Author: John Racine

Department: Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology

Approved for Thesis Requirements of Master of Science Degree

__________________________________________________ __________

Gary Pace, Ph.D., BCBA-D

__________________________________________________ __________

Karen Gould, Ph.D.

__________________________________________________ __________

Hannah Rue, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies iii

Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with Brief


by

John Racine

B.S., Northeastern University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis

in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School of Northeastern University, May 2012

Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis chair, Gary Pace, for his continued support and

guidance throughout my career, Amy Baranek for her unwavering support and keen

observation, and Jennifer Derderian for her valued assistance in this project.

Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 1

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................... 3

Methods................................................................................................................................... 8

Participants and Setting........................................................................... 8

Procedure................................................................................................. 8

Inter-observer Agreement and Procedural Integrity............................... 15

Results...................................................................................................................................... 17

Preference Assessment............................................................................. 17

Reinforcer Assessment............................................................................. 18

Brief Experimental Analysis.................................................................... 18

Discussion................................................................................................................................ 20

References............................................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A.............................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix B.............................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix C.............................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix D.............................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix E.............................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix F.............................................................................................................................. 33

Appendix G............................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix H............................................................................................................................. 35

Appendix I............................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix J.............................................................................................................................. 37


Figure Captions...................................................................................................................... 38

Figures..................................................................................................................................... 39


Abstract

This study describes the use of a brief experimental analysis (BEA) in comparing rates of sight word acquisition. Two individuals with brain injuries, in a school setting, were presented with five different sight word acquisition interventions in an alternating treatments experimental design. Interventions included repeated readings, phonics, contingent reinforcement, flashcards with corresponding pictures, and a control condition. Prior to the BEA formal preference and reinforcer assessments were conducted, with the high-preference stimuli being used in the contingent reinforcement condition. For the first participant, the repeated readings intervention produced the highest rates of correct responding. For the second participant, the repeated readings, flashcards with corresponding pictures, and phonics conditions, all produced high rates of correct responding, with the repeated readings condition producing the highest rates. Results of this study suggest that the BEA can be used to effectively assess the intervention that will produce the highest initial rates of sight word acquisition.


Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with Brief Experimental Analysis in Two Children with Brain Injuries

The instructional hierarchy is a model that conceptualizes learning as taking place

in one of four phases: acquisition, fluency, generalization and adaptation (Daly, Lentz &

Boyer, 1996). In this model, a learner must first acquire a new skill before progressing

towards fluency or generalization. Although interventions could target any of the steps in

this conceptual hierarchy, all skills must first begin at the skill acquisition phase. For

students with a limited or no reading ability, a successful intervention would be one that

targets skill acquisition. One important area is sight word acquisition.

Several different interventions that target skill acquisition have been examined in

the literature. Phonics is a well-known intervention that is commonly used throughout

public schools to teach reading skills. Daly, Johnson & LeClair (2009) taught phoneme

blending and segmenting phonics skills to first-grade students and were successful in

increasing the students correctly read words. Matching picture to written words has been

used to teach children with developmental disabilities stimulus equivalence (Fossett &

Mirenda, 2006). Response repetition has been shown to be an effective intervention in

teaching sight word acquisition to both typically developing yet under-performing

children as well children with mild developmental disabilities (Ferkis, Belfiore, Skinner,

1997; VanAuken, Chafouleas, Bradley & Martens, 2002). Eckert, Ardoin, Daisey &

Scarola (2000) have examined the use of performance-based interventions and

demonstrated success in increasing oral reading rates in typically developing children.

In order to verify that the contingent stimuli in a performance-based intervention

are truly reinforcing, a formal preference and reinforcer assessment is often conducted.

Clevenger and Graff (2005) demonstrated that preference assessments could be


conducted using pictures of stimuli rather than the stimuli themselves. A prerequisite skill

for success in this assessment appeared to be picture-to-object and object-to-picture

matching skills for the participant. Typically, edible stimuli are used in a reinforcer

assessment. Recently more studies have investigated the use of activities as reinforcers.

Daly, Wells, Swanger-Gagne, Carr & Taylor (2009) tested the effects of contingent

activities on rates of math problem completion. Pictures representing different activities

were used throughout a multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) assessment.

Pictures corresponding to activities allowed the researchers to provide the participants

with a salient discriminative stimulus for contingencies without the use of edible stimuli.

Brief experimental analysis (BEA) is a process wherein multiple intervention

strategies can be tested and compared to one another in a timely, cost-effective manner

(Martens, Eckert, Bradley & Ardoin, 1999). BEA allows a researcher to identify a

promising intervention strategy on a student-by-student basis. BEA has been used in

several studies to quickly determine effective interventions in reading fluency (Burns &

Wagner, 2008; Daly, Murdoch, Lillenstein, Webber & Lentz, 2002). Unlike a formal

experimental analysis each intervention condition only needs a few data points or trials.

A BEA has been shown to produce similar findings with fewer trials per condition as an

extended analysis (Welsch, 2007), and interventions that produced the best results in a

BEA were shown to produce above baseline results when those same interventions were

tested against a no-treatment control condition in an extended analysis (Eckert et al.,

2000).

In a BEA, the researcher may first identify a target behavior and collect baseline

data until a stable trend emerges. Next, the researcher presents several different treatment


interventions in an alternating treatment design. Each condition is presented only one to

three times (or until consistent results are shown), the main difference between a BEA

and an extended analysis. The results of these are compared against each other, and the

best intervention is chosen and can be implemented against a baseline condition to

become an extended analysis (Wilber & Cushman, 2006).

Baranek, Fienup and Pace (2011) used a BEA to examine the effects of 10

different sight word acquisition interventions on an 11-year-old boy in a private school

for children with brain injuries. The student’s teacher reported that the current errorless

learning program being used was unsuccessful and the student's rate of sight word

acquisition was near zero. Interventions used included repeated readings both with and

without passage previews (Ferkis et al., 1997; VanAuken et al., 2002), increased trials

with instructor feedback (Ferkis, Belfiore & Skinner, 1997), within stimulus prompts

wherein the first letter of each word was accentuated with a larger font and different color

(Belfiore, Grskovic, Murphy & Zentall, 1996), stimulus equivalence via flashcards with

Boardmaker picture representations of the written word (Didden, deGraff, Nelemans,

Vooren & Lancioni 2006; Fossett & Mirenda, 2006), phonics (Daly, Johnson, & LeClair,

2009), a folding-in procedure with a ratio of 70:30 known/unknown words (Shapiro,

2004), and two incentive conditions in which a previously reported preferred activity was

made contingent upon correctly reading first 2, and then 4 words (Eckert et al., 2000) as

well as a baseline condition.

Baranek, Fienup and Pace (2011) found that the best results were obtained during

the phonics and flashcards with pictures conditions. These two conditions produced the

same results and an extended analysis was then conducted in which both interventions


were examined against a control condition. Although both experimental interventions

eventually produced mastery (set at 90% accuracy over three consecutive sessions), the

flashcards with pictures intervention produced faster results with slightly higher

maintenance.

In this study, the procedure used by Baranek, Fieunup and Pace (2011) was

repeated across two participants using the flashcards with pictures, phonics, repeated

readings, and incentive conditions in order to assess the most effective intervention in

sight word acquisition in a private school for children with brain injuries. A BEA was

conducted using an alternating treatment design with these four interventions being

compared against a control condition. Each participant also underwent formal preference

and reinforcer assessments using pictures of activities as stimuli in an MSWO format

(Daly et al., 2009). The purpose of this study was to further assess the use of the BEA in

the area of academic instruction, with a focus on rates of sight word acquisition.

Methods

Participants and Setting The participants were two students at a school for children with brain injuries in

southern Massachusetts; Jackie, a 13 year-old girl diagnosed with a seizure disorder, and

Bryan, a 16 year-old who underwent a partial lobectomy for treatment of seizures. The

teachers of both students reported that neither had made progress in their sight word

mastery goals.

All sessions were conducted in one of two rooms at the school the students

attended. The first was a small conference room containing one large table and several

office chairs as well as a phone, TV, and various informational pamphlets. The other


room was a slightly larger training room that had several chairs, tables, and a projection

screen. During all sessions only the experimenter, the participant, and an observer who

collected inter-observer agreement data collection were present. Session length varied

according to the type of intervention being conducted. All sessions occurred during

regular school hours.

Procedures

In this study five different sight word acquisition interventions were tested using

an alternating treatments design. In the contingent reinforcement condition a reinforcing

stimulus was made available contingent on the participant making a specified number of

accurate responses during the session. Before this condition was implemented formal

preference and reinforcer assessments were conducted to determine the most appropriate

consequence (Daly et al., 2009).

Lists of potentially reinforcing activities were created initially in consultation with

the participant's teachers. In place of edibles the stimuli chosen for the preference

assessment were activities in which the participant could engage. Activities tested during

the preference assessment included various board games, sports, and electronics. As

certain potential reinforcers could not feasibly be tested using a traditional preference

assessment array (playing basketball, going for a walk, etc.), pictures were taken of a

staff member engaging in the activities. The staff member used in these pictures had no

previous experience working with either of the participants. Students were then taught to

associate the picture cards with their corresponding activities via discrete trials training.


Discrete Trial Training

Twelve picture cards were constructed to teach the participants to associate

between the images and corresponding activities (see Appendix A). Pictures cards were

8” by 8” laminated squares containting color photographs of a person engaging in the

activities. These activities included taking a walk, playing basketball, playing soccer,

playing tennis, reading a book, playing cards, using a “Gameboy DS” hand-held

electronic game console, accessing the website “Youtube” on the computer, operating an

“I-Touch” digital mp3 player, playing with dominoes, drawing a picture, and playing the

“Guess Who?” board game.

Sessions were conducted in a discrete trial format; one experimenter and one

participant participated in each session. Two types of discrete trial sessions were used to

teach the participant to match a picture to a spoken word, then to match a spoken word to

a picture. In the picture-to-word trials, the experimenter held up one picture and said,

“[participant's name], what is the girl in the picture doing?” If the participant responded

correctly, the experimenter delivered verbal praise. If the participant responded

incorrectly, the experimenter responded with the correct response. Mastery was defined

as 100% accuracy for three consecutive sessions. Data was collected on pre-made data

sheets (see Appendices E & F).

Once the participants reached mastery in the picture-to-spoken word matching

trials, they moved onto the spoken word-to-picture trials. In the spoken word-to-picture

trials, each participant was shown three randomly chosen picture cards. Picture cards

were placed on the table in front of and facing the participant in a straight line across;

each picture card was approximately three inches apart from the next closest card. The


experimenter stated, “Point to [activity displayed in picture card].” Correct responses

(defined as the participant making physical contact with the corresponding picture card

with any part of the hand) occasioned verbal praise from the experimenter. If the

participant responded incorrectly, the experimenter pointed to the correct picture card.

Trials were conducted until each participant reached mastery, defined as 100% accuracy

over three consecutive sessions.

Preference Assessment

When a participant reached the criterion for mastery for each type of discrete

trial, a formal preference assessment was conducted (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996). A

multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) format was used to assess the

participant’s preference for the activities depicted in the picture cards (Daly et al., 2009).

Picture cards were presented to each participant in a quasi-random array of six cards.

Data were collected on the order in which the participant chose the picture cards using

prepared data sheets (see Appendix G). Choice was defined as a participant gesturing to a

card or physically touching or grabbing a card in any way. Picture cards were re-

presented and choice data was not scored if a participant touched multiple cards at the

same time, made a verbal choice without touching or otherwise gesturing towards a card,

or made a verbal choice but did not point to or touch the same corresponding card (i.e.,

participant says “basketball” but touches the card representing a book). Because Jackie

had a past history of becoming quickly satiated on a reinforcer, this preference

assessment was conducted three times to ensure that the highly preferred stimuli

remained the same. Bryan’s preference assessment was conducted once.

At the beginning of each session, the experimenter stated, “[participant's name],


which of these things would you like to do? Pick your favorite first and then your next

favorite and so on.” The experimenter did not provide any additional verbal feedback.

Once the participant reached the definition for a choice, the experimenter removed the

card and shifted the position of each card to the right (the picture card furthest to the right

was moved furthest to the left) to mitigate any bias the participant may have had to the

location of the card. Each session lasted until the participant had chosen all of the cards.

From the data collected on the order of choice, the stimuli were rank in order of

preference.

Reinforcer Assessment

For each participant, the stimulus ranked highest in the preference assessment was

then presented in a formal reinforcer assessment (Daly et al., 2009). Each participant was

given two identical "Handwriting Without Tears" worksheet packets before the start of

the session. Each packet contained five worksheets. The worksheets involved tracing a

capital letter into several boxes. At the beginning of each session, the experimenter would

stated, “[participant's name], I want you to do some work. If you do the [worksheet

packet paired with high-preference stimuli] you will have ten minutes of [high-preference

stimuli]. If you do the [worksheet packet paired with low-preference stimuli] you will

have 10 minutes of [low-preference stimuli].” The experimenter did not provide

assistance to the participant or provide any other verbal input until the participant

completed one of the worksheet packets. If the participant completed all of the

worksheets in a packet, the experimenter delivered the assigned contingencies. Data were

collected on the number of worksheets completed in each packet.


Word Inclusion

Sight words used in this study were chosen from the Dolch reading lists. These

lists include words that occur at a high frequency and are broken into five sections: pre-

primer, primer, first grade, second grade, and third grade (see Appendix B). The words

were printed out in bold, lower case, and size 30-font comic sans type. One printed word

was attached to one side of one index card, measuring 12.7cm by 7.6cm. In total 220 such

cards were created. Each participant was shown the entire 220-word list. Sight words

were shown one at a time. The experimenter provided occasional verbal praise ("You're

working hard," or "Good job working") but did not offer corrective feedback. A correct

response was defined as the participant pronouncing the word correctly and in the correct

tense within three seconds of the initial prompt. An incorrect response was defined as the

participant either pronouncing the word incorrectly, in the wrong tense, or not providing

a response within 10 seconds of the experimenter showing the sight word to the

participant. A second observer was available during all word inclusion sessions. Both the

experimenter and the observer scored correct and incorrect responses for each word. Two

sessions were conducted for each participant.

For a word to be included in this study, the participant had to respond incorrectly

in both sessions (see Appendices C & D). Words that were scored as “correct” by one

observer but “incorrect” by another were likewise not included. The experimenter

created the word lists for each condition by taking the words the participant responded to

incorrectly in both word inclusion sessions and forming a large pool of unknown words.

Ten word lists of unknown words were created through random assignment from this

pool. Each novel word list was used only once and no words were ever presented twice.


Each condition was presented to each participant once using novel unknown word lists

for each session.

Brief Experimental Analysis

Upon completion of the word inclusion sessions, a brief experimental analysis

that replicated the procedures used by Baranek, Fienup and Pace (2011) was conducted.

Four different interventions to teach sight word acquisition (phonics, flash cards with

pictures, incentive and repeated readings) were analyzed using an alternating treatments

experimental design. At the beginning of each session, the experimenter read from a

script that described the behavior of both the experimenter and the participant during

each intervention condition. The experimenter praised correctly read words and ignored

incorrect responses unless otherwise specified as part of the condition (i.e., phonics).

In the phonics condition, the experimenter prompted the participants to sound out

words at the beginning of each session. When a participant responded incorrectly, the

experimenter modeled how to sound out each word correctly. In the flash cards with

pictures conditions, the sight word flash cards were modified to contain Boardmaker®

icons which represented the words; that is, the icon was placed on the right side of each

printed word. In the contingent reinforcement condition, the experimenter provided the

participant access to the top ranked choice from the preference assessment contingent on

the correct reading of words within the session. For Jackie the criteria were two correct

responses, and for Bryan the criteria were set at four. In the repeated reading condition,

the experimenter practiced the list of words for that session ten times with the participant

while providing feedback (praise for correct responses and correction for incorrect

responses).


Once the participant had been exposed to the intervention for a set number of

times (three times each in the phonics, flashcards with pictures and control conditions,

once in the contingent reinforcement condition and ten times in the repeated readings

condition), the participant was allowed a short break. During this break the participant

and experiment would play a game (“Don’t Break The Ice,” “Connect 4,” etc.) for 5

minutes. Once the 5-minute break had expired the testing phase began. During the testing

phase the experimenter collected data on the number of correct responses using the 10-

card sight word lists to which the participant had just been exposed. During the testing

phase, however, no treatments (no correct modeling of sounds, no pictures corresponding

to the sight word etc.) were administered. Data were collected using prepared data sheets

(see Appendices H & I). Performances for each session were evaluated in an alternating

treatments design.

Inter-observer Agreements and Procedural Integrity

Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was collected by an independent observer during

60% of all total trials, including preference assessments, reinforcer assessments, discrete

trial sessions, word inclusion sessions and during the BEA. IOA was calculated by

dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus the number of

disagreements. The quotient was then multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage.

IOA averaged 98% across all sessions. Treatment integrity was scored using data sheets

created for each different session type (see Appendix J). Data were collected on the

behavior of the experimenter and their accuracy in following pre-created scripts for each

session type. Treatment integrity was calculated by dividing the number of correct

responses by the total number of correct responses plus incorrect responses. The quotient


was the multiplied by 100 and expressed as a percentage. Treatment integrity was taken

on 50% of sessions and averaged 100%.

Results

Picture-to-Word Discrete Trial

Figure 1 illustrates the results of the picture-to-word discrete trial training

sessions. Scores for each participant were calculated by dividing the number of correct

responses by the total number of stimuli. During the first six sessions conducted Jackie

responded incorrectly to the picture stimuli for 'Color' and 'Guess Who?' Jackie scored

54% for session one, 85% for sessions two and three, 69% for session four, 85% for

sessions five through seven, 92% for sessions eight through ten, and 100% for sessions

eleven through thirteen. Jackie achieved mastery by the thirteenth session. Bryan scored

67% for session one, 83% for session two, and 100% for sessions three through five.

Bryan achieved mastery by session five.

Word-to-Picture Discrete Trial

Figure 2 illustrates the results of the word-to-picture discrete trial training

sessions. Both participants achieved mastery after three sessions.

Preference Assessment

Figure 3 illustrates the results of the multiple-stimulus without replacement

(MSWO) preference assessment. Jackie chose 'Basketball' as her first choice two out of

three sessions. Jackie's remaining preferences in order of highest to lowest were

'Gameboy,' 'Color,' a tie between 'iTouch' and 'Bean Bag,' and finally 'Dominoes.' Bryan

chose 'Color' as his top preference. Bryan's remaining preferences in order of highest to

lowest were 'Basketball,' 'Cards,' 'Computer,' 'Book,' and 'Walk.'


Reinforcer Assessment

Figure 4 illustrates the results of the paired-choice reinforcer assessment. Both

participants completed all five pages of the worksheet packet associated with their

respective highly preferred stimulus. Additionally, neither participant attempted to

complete the identical work sheet packet that was paired with the low-preference

stimulus.

Word Inclusion Trial

Out of 220 possible Dolch sight words, Jackie responded incorrectly to a total of

150 words across two trials. Jackie's word inclusion list included 14 pre-primer, 30

primer, 32 first-grade, 38 second-grade, and 36 third-grade words. Bryan responded

incorrectly to 119 words across two trials. Bryan's word inclusion list included 5 pre-

primer, 28 primer, 25 first-grade, 30 second-grade, and 31 third-grade words.

Brief Experimental Analysis

Figure 5 illustrates the results of the brief experimental analysis. Scores were calculated

by dividing the number of correct responses by the total number of correct and incorrect

responses for a possible ten out of 10, or 100%. Jackie scored highest in the repeated

readings condition with a score of 70%. Jackie's scores in the remaining conditions were

40% in the phonics condition, 30% in the flashcards with Boardmaker® pictures

condition, 10% in the contingent reinforcement condition, and 0% in the no feedback

condition. Bryan also scored highest in the repeated readings condition with a score of

100%. Bryan's scores in the remaining conditions were 90% in both the phonics and

flashcards with Boardmaker® pictures conditions, 30% in the contingent reinforcement

condition, and 20% in the no feedback condition.


Discussion

Results of this study provide evidence supporting the use of the brief experimental

analysis to determine an effective strategy for sight word acquisition amongst several

interventions in two children with brain injuries. For both participants, at least one

intervention was found to produce higher rates of correct responding in comparison to a

control condition. This is consistent with the results obtained by Baranek, Fienup and

Pace (2011).

Prior to the beginning of this study, Jackie was not progressing towards meeting

her annual Individual Education Plan annual goal while being instructed with the use of a

flashcards with Boardmaker® pictures intervention that was identical to one of the

interventions tested as part of the BEA. Upon completion of the BEA the experimenters

reviewed the results with Jackie’s teachers. Based on their findings the experimenters

suggested that the teachers cease using the Boardmaker® pictures procedure and switch

to instruction based on the repeated readings intervention. Jackie subsequently surpassed

her quarterly goal and was on track to achieve her annual goal. In addition, Jackie's

teachers stated that the new intervention was easier to implement and did not involve the

time-consuming production of Boardmaker® picture icons.

Throughout the course of this study, Bryan progressed slowly towards his IEP

annual goal. As a consequence of the consultation experimenters provided at the

completion of the BEA, Bryan's teachers focused on providing accurate and immediate

corrective feedback to him contingent on incorrect responses during his sight word

acquisition instruction. Bryan then surpassed his quarterly goal and was also on track to

achieve his annual goal. Bryan's teacher stated that in the future an intervention based on


the phonics intervention tested as part of the BEA might be implemented as part of

Bryan's educational goals.

In order to further facilitate and understand the participant's performance, a

within-intervention analysis was conducted upon the conclusion of the BEA. Although

Jackie obtained a 70% in the final testing phase of the repeated readings intervention, it

was noted that when she was exposed to the combination of repeated exposure and

corrective feedback, she scored as high as 90%, and responded correctly at least once to

each word. Bryan's score was highest during the testing phase of the repeated readings

intervention as well. However, upon examination of the within-intervention analysis

results become less clear. During the phonics intervention Bryan's scores ranged from

60% to 100%; in comparison, during the flashcards with Boardmaker® pictures

intervention Bryan's scores increased from 0% during the first exposure to the

intervention to 40%, 60% and finally 90% during the testing phase. During the repeated

readings intervention, Bryan's scores ranged from 30% to 100%, with an average score of

85%.

Neither participant scored highest in the contingent reinforcement condition, or

reached criteria to access the contingent reinforcer. After formal preference and

reinforcer assessments were conducted, it appeared that motivation was not a powerful

factor in the responding of either Jackie or Bryan. The experimenters believed, however,

that during the word inclusion trials Bryan was not correctly responding to words that he

might have previously acquired. Upon consultation with Bryan's teacher, the

experimenters noted that Bryan had in fact previously mastered some of the words in the

Dolch lists during his former IEP quarters. This could have conceivably led to the


inclusion of previously known words into Bryan's word lists that were tested in the BEA.

The effects of this are not known, but because Bryan did not achieve criteria to access the

contingent reinforcer during the intervention, it may not have had as much of an effect as

were previously feared.

Although both participants scored highest among the repeated readings

intervention, Bryan also scored 90% in the phonics and flashcards with pictures

interventions. An extended analysis, in which these top three interventions are tested until

Bryan achieves mastery in each condition, may help to show which intervention is truly

the most effective in helping Bryan acquire sight words the fastest. Likewise, as all three

of these conditions contain corrective feedback as part of their interventions, an extended

analysis could test whether corrective feedback alone is enough to increase rates of

correct responding. The results of the BEA indicate that perhaps any intervention strategy

in which corrective feedback is a component could be successful in assisting Bryan to

acquire sight words at a high rate.

Results of the preference and reinforcer assessments provide further evidence that

the use of pictures of activities as stimuli in a multiple-stimulus without replacement

assessment can be just as effective as results found in assessments using only edible

stimuli. An advantage of using activities instead of edibles is that the risk of weight gain

and allergen exposure is reduced. The pictures may also function as a conditioned

reinforcer when paired with access to the activities they depict; thus, the pictures

themselves create a more immediate contingency. It is important to note that both

participants involved in this study could perform the matching picture-to-object and

object-to-picture performances, proposed by Clevenger and Graff (2005) as prerequisite


skills for pictorial preference assessments.

Future research should account for these variables, including an extended analysis

to determine if results obtained during the BEA would correspond. In Baranek et al.

(2011), one intervention that initially tested high during the BEA proved to be less

effective overall and took more sessions before mastery was achieved. Three of the

interventions tested with Bryan were shown to be immediately effective; it is possible

that an extended analysis could reveal which of the three interventions would be most

efficient in helping Bryan master a sight word list.

The use of the BEA in other academic areas could also be studied. For example, a

BEA that examines different intervention strategies to teach mathematics or other

instructional areas could be conducted.

Although the BEA has been primarily used to test interventions to decrease

maladaptive behaviors, its use in academic instruction appears to be worthy of further

investigation. The creation of a standardized and time-effective tool for special education

teachers to quickly test several potentially helpful interventions in a fast and easy to

understand way could be extremely helpful.


References

Baranek, A., Fienup, D. M., & Pace, G. (2011). Brief experimental analysis of sight word

interventions: A comparison of acquisition and maintenance of detected

interventions. Behavior Modification, 35, 78-94.

Belfiore, P. J., Grskovic, J. A., Murphy, A. M., & Zentall, S. S. (1996). The effects of

antecedent color on reading for students with learning disabilities and co-

occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 29, 432-438.

Burns, M. K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention with a brief

experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology

Review, 37, 126-136.

Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-

object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments. Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 543-547.

Daly, E. J., III, Johnson,. S., & LeClair, C. (2009). An experimental analysis of phoneme

blending and segmenting skills. Journal of Behavioral Educations, 18, 5-19.

Daly E. J., III, Lentz, F. E., & Boyer, J. (1996). The instructional hierarchy: A conceptual

model for understanding the effective component of reading interventions. School

Psychology Quarterly, 11, 369-386.

Daly, E. J., III, Murdoch, A., Lillenstein, L., Webber, L., Lentz, F. E. (2002). An

examination of methods for testing treatments: Conducting brief experimental

analyses of the effects of instructional components on oral reading fluency.

Education and Treatment of Children, Vol. 25, No. 3, 288-316.


Daly, E. J., III, Wells, N. J., Swanger-Gagne, M. S., Carr, J. E., Kunz, G. M., & Taylor,

A. M. (2009). Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement

preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 42, 563-574.

DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation

format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

29, 519–533.

Didden, T., de Graff, S., Nelemans, M., Vooren, M. & Lancioni, G. (2006). Teaching

sight words to children with moderate to mild mental retardation: Comparison

between instructional procedures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111,

357-365.

Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daisey, D. M., & Scarola, M. D. (2000). Empirically

evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief

experimental analysis and single case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37,

463-473.

Ferkis, M. A., Belfiore, P. J., & Skinner, C. H. (1997). The effects of response repetitions

on sight word acquisition for students with mild disabilities. Journal of

Behavioral Education, 7, 307-324.

Fossett, B., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Sight word reading in children with developmental

disabilities: A comparison of paired associate and picture-to-text matching

instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 411-429.

Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Bradley, T. A., & Ardoin, S. O. (1999). Identifying

effective treatments from a brief experimental analysis: Using single-case design


elements to aid decision-making. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 163-181.

Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Workbook (rev. ed.). New York, NY:

Guilford.

VanAuken, T. L., Chafouleas, S. M., Bradley, T. A., & Martens, B. K. (2002). Using

brief experimental analysis to select oral reading interventions: An investigation

of treatment utility. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 163-179.

Welsch, R. G. (2007). Using experimental analysis to determine interventions for reading

fluency and recalls of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 30, 115-129.

Wilber, A., & Cushman, T. (2006). Selecting effective academic interventions: An

examples using brief experimental analysis for oral reading. Psychology in the

Schools, 43, 79-84.


Appendix A

Activity Cards Basketball Beanbag

Book Cards

Color Computer

Guess Who? Dominos

Gameboy ITouch

Soccer Tennis

Walk


Appendix B Dolch Sight Word List


Appendix C Word Inclusion List, Jackie

Pre-Primer Primer First Second Third

and away come down find help here jump look make said three we

where

all are ate be

brown came

do four good have must new now our out

please pretty ran ride saw so

soon there this

under want well what white who

after again

an any as ask by

could every fly

from give

going her him how just

know let

may of old

once open over

round take thank them think walk were

always around because

been before best both buy call does dont first five

found gave goes its

made many pull read right sing sleep their these those upon us use very wash which why wish

would write your

about better bring carry clean cut

done draw drink eight fall far

grow hold keep kind laugh light long much myself never only own pick

seven shall show six

small start today

together try

warm


Appendix D Word Inclusion List, Bryan

Pre-Primer Primer First Second Third

come find

funny said

where

ate brown

but came did do eat into must now our

please pretty ride saw she that there they this want well went what white who will with

after again any ask

could every fly

give going his how know

let old

once over

round take thank them then think walk were when

always around because before best both call cold don’t first five

found gave goes its

made many pull read sleep tell

these those upon use very

which why

would write

about better bring carry clean done draw drink eight far full got

grow hold hurt if

kind laugh long much myself never only own pick shall show small start

together try


Appendix E Discrete Trial, Jackie Spoken Word to Picture Matching: Present Jackie with three pictures; one should be the trialed word and two should be distractors. Tell Jackie, “Point to [word].” Give verbal praise if correct. If incorrect point to the correct choice and say, “This is [word].” Mastery is achieved when Jackie has 100% for three consecutive trials.

Picture to Spoken Word Matching: Hold up each picture one at a time. Ask Jackie, “What is this?” Give verbal praise if correct. If incorrect state, “Jackie this is [word].” Mastery is achieved when Jackie has 100% for three consecutive trials.

Date: Date: Date: Date: + / - + / - + / - + / - Word

Gameboy Computer I-touch Basketball Soccer Tennis Walk Color Book Dominoes Cards Guess Who? Bean Bag


Gameboy Computer I-touch Basketball Soccer Tennis Walk Color Book Dominoes Cards Guess Who? Bean Bag


Appendix F Discrete Trial, Bryan Spoken Word to Picture Matching: Present Bryan with three pictures; one should be the trialed word and two should be distractors. Tell Bryan, “Point to [word].” Give verbal praise if correct. If incorrect point to the correct choice and say, “This is [word].” Mastery is achieved when Bryan has 100% for three consecutive trials.

Picture to Spoken Word: Hold up each picture one at a time. Ask Bryan, “What is this?” Give verbal praise if correct. If incorrect state, “Bryan this is [word].” Mastery is achieved when Bryan has 100% for three consecutive trials.


Computer Basketball Walk Color Book Cards


Computer Basketball Walk Color Book Cards


Appendix G Preference Assessment Data Sheet (Jackie) Observer: Date:

Preference Assessment Data Sheet (Bryan) Observer: Date:

Reinforcer Assessment Data Sheet (Jackie & Bryan) Observer: Date:

Low-P Stimulus High-P Stimulus Pages Completed: Pages Completed:

Stimulus Rank Order (1-6) Gameboy ITouch

Basketball Color

Dominoes BeanBag

Stimulus Rank Order (1-6) Computer

Cards Basketball

Color Book Walk


Appendix H BEA Data Sheet (Jackie) Phonics Pictures

No Feedback SR+

Repeated Readings

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word together who far only are be have never first right

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word fly read write there cut small before please long don’t

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word always best does why upon five soon light carry once

+/- Word call better ride today pick we every laugh make of

+/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Word by new us seven this made over done jump knew


Appendix I BEA Data Sheet (Bryan) Phonics Pictures

No Feedback SR+

Repeated Readings

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word then who sleep find old give before know into let

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word fly hurt write said carry ride brown pull never much

+/- +/- +/- +/- Word clean but own his read eat them its goes want

+/- Word every this do funny our very why could always use

+/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/- Word draw went made walk cold gave now kind she about


Appendix J Treatment Integrity Data Sheet (Jackie & Bryan) Spoken Word to Picture Discrete Trial

1. Did the experimenter recite the directions to the participant clearly? Y N 2. Did the experimenter present each card correctly (cards facing towards the participant, oriented

correctly and in plain view of the participant)? Y N 3. Did the experimenter provide verbal praise for a correct response? Y N 4. Did the experimenter provide corrective feedback for an incorrect response/ failure to respond

within 3 seconds? Y N 5. Did the experimenter present all of the cards involved in the trial? Y N

Total: IOA: Picture to Spoken Word Discrete Trial


correctly and in plain view of the participant)? Y N 3. Did the experimenter provide verbal praise for a correct response? Y N 4. Did the experimenter provide corrective feedback for an incorrect response/ failure to respond

within 3 seconds? Y N 5. Did the experimenter present all of the cards involved in the trial? Y N

Total: IOA: Preference Assessment


correctly and in plain view of the participant)? Y N 3. Did the experimenter allow the participant to engage in the chosen activity as soon as the

participant chose it? Y N 4. Did the experimenter reset the cards after each activity correctly (all cards moved to the right one

space, card furthest at the right is moved to the left)? Y N 5. Did the experimenter present all of the cards involved in the trial? Y N

Total: IOA: Reinforcer Assessment

1. Did the experimenter recite the directions to the participant clearly? Y N 2. Did the experimenter present the materials correctly (cards and worksheets facing towards the

participant, oriented correctly, in plain view of the participant)? Y N 3. Did the experimenter allow the participant to engage in the corresponding activity as soon as the

participant completed the worksheet? Y N 4. Did the experimenter have all materials (worksheets, picture cards, pencils) prepared?

Y N Total: IOA: Brief Experimental Analysis

1. Did the experimenter recite the directions to the participant clearly? Y N 2. Did the experimenter present each flash card correctly (cards facing towards the participant,

oriented correctly, and in plain view of the participant)? Y N 3. Did the experimenter provide verbal praise for a correct response (if applicable as part of the

intervention)? Y N 4. Did the experimenter provide corrective feedback for an incorrect response (if applicable)?

Y N 5. Did the experimenter present all of the cards involved in the trial? Y N

Total: IOA:


Figure Captions Figure 1. Percent of correct responding during picture-to-word discrete trial sessions

Figure 2. Percent of correct responding during word-to-picture discrete trial sessions

Figure 3. The ranking of preference in stimuli from highest to lowest

Figure 4. Percent of worksheets completed for either high-P or low-P stimuli

Figure 5. The number of correct responses per intervention

Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies

Figure 1


Figures

35


Figure 2


36


Figure 3


37


Figure 4


38


Figure 5


39

Documents

Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition ...994/fulltext.pdf · Comparing the Effects of Sight Word Acquisition Interventions with B rief Experimental Analysis in Two Children