Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 1–4 | Cite as

Brief Experimental Analyses of Academic Performance: Introduction to the Special Series

  • Jennifer J. McComas
  • Matthew K. Burns
Original Paper


Academic skills are frequent concerns in K-12 schools that could benefit from the application of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Brief experimental analysis (BEA) of academic performance is perhaps the most promising approach to apply ABA to student learning. Although research has consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of academic interventions developed from BEA data, research on BEA is in its infancy. The current article suggests that BEA is consistent with the principles of ABA described by Baer et al. (J Appl Behav Anal 37:111–114, 1968) and describes the special series. The special series includes five studies and one commentary that further the evolution of BEA research.


Academic Performance Reading Fluency Applied Behavior Analysis Academic Skill Behavior Analyst 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to express our deepest thanks to George Noell for his support and guidance in pulling together this special issue. In addition, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and timely correspondence.


  1. Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 5, 15–27.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Lin, H.-L. R., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111–114. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K., & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37, 126–136.Google Scholar
  5. Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574.Google Scholar
  6. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckert, T. L., Ardoin, S. P., Daisey, D. M., & Scaroloa, 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, 463–474. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(200009)37:5<;463::AID-PITS6>;3.0.CO;2-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, K. R., & Layng, T. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. The American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2004). The morningside model of generative instruction. Concord: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.Google Scholar
  10. Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Englewood: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J. S., & Strikeleather, G. (2004). Engineering discovery learning: The contingency adduction of some precursors of textual responding in a beginning reading program. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 20, 99–109.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2007. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Manzo, K. K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on ‘03 NAEP. Education Week, 23(12), 1–18.Google Scholar
  14. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card (NAEP). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  15. Noell, G. H., Freeland, J. T., Witt, J. C., & Gansle, K. A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 335–355. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00072-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Saffer, N. (1999). Core subjects and your career. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(2), 26–40.Google Scholar
  17. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. US Department of Education. (2002). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP), 2002 writing assessment and unpublished tabulations. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  19. Wagner, D., McComas, J. J., Bollman, K., & Holton, E. (2006). The use of functional analysis of academic response to intervention for oral reading. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations