comparing the effects of sight word acquisition ...994/fulltext.pdf · comparing the effects of...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Experimental Analysis in Two Children with Brain Injuries
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
Experimental Analysis in Two Children with Brain Injuries
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 2
Figure Captions...................................................................................................................... 38
Figures..................................................................................................................................... 39
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 3
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 Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 4
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 5
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 6
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 7
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 8
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 9
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 10
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],
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 11
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 12
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 13
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).
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 14
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 15
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.'
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 16
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 17
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 18
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 19
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 20
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 21
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 22
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 23
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.
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 24
Appendix A
Activity Cards Basketball Beanbag
Book Cards
Color Computer
Guess Who? Dominos
Gameboy ITouch
Soccer Tennis
Walk
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 25
Appendix B Dolch Sight Word List
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 26
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 27
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 28
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
Date: Date: Date: Date: + / - + / - + / - + / - Word
Gameboy Computer I-touch Basketball Soccer Tennis Walk Color Book Dominoes Cards Guess Who? Bean Bag
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 29
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.
Date: Date: Date: Date: + / - + / - + / - + / - Word
Computer Basketball Walk Color Book Cards
Date: Date: Date: Date: + / - + / - + / - + / - Word
Computer Basketball Walk Color Book Cards
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 30
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 31
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 32
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 33
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
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: Preference Assessment
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 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:
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies 34
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
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
Figures
35
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
Figure 2
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
36
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
Figure 3
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
37
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
Figure 4
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
38
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
Figure 5
Comparing Sight Word Acquisition Strategies
39