Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 156–168 | Cite as

A Comparison of Taped Problems With and Without a Brief Post-Treatment Assessment on Multiplication Fluency

  • Stacy L. Bliss
  • Christopher H. Skinner
  • Elizabeth McCallum
  • Lee B. Saecker
  • Emily Rowland-Bryant
  • Katie S. Brown
Original Paper


An adapted alternating treatments design was used to compare the effectiveness of a taped-problems (TP) intervention with TP and an additional immediate assessment (TP + AIA) on the multiplication fluency of six fifth-grade students. During TP, the students listened to a tape playing a series of multiplication problems and answers three times. Students were instructed to try to beat the tape by writing each answer before they heard it on the tape. The interval between each problem and answer was varied as the problems were repeated. For the TP + AIA condition, immediately after completing TP, students completed an extra assessment sheet consisting of the same problems heard on the tape. Results showed increases in math-fact fluency across both treatment sets of problems (TP and TP + AIA) and a control set of problems. However, results varied across students and only two of the students showed meaningful gains when the TP was supplemented with the AIA. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.


Math fluency Post-treatment practice Taped problems Component analysis 


  1. Billington, E. J., Skinner, C. H., & Cruchon, N. M. (2004). Improving sixth-grade students’ perceptions of high-effort assignments by assigning more work: Interaction of additive interspersal and assignment effort on assignment choice. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H., McCallum, E., & Masters, S. (2006). Evaluating and comparing responsiveness to two interventions designed to enhance math-fact fluency. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 1, 1–18.Google Scholar
  3. Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between math anxiety and math performance. An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Codding, R. S., Shiyko, M., Russo, M., Birch, S., Fanning, E., & Jaspen, D. (2007). Comparing mathematics interventions: Does initial level of fluency predict intervention effectiveness? Journal of School Psychology, 45, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  6. Freeman, T. J., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1984). Effects of a taped-words treatment procedure on learning disabled students’ sight-word reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. L. Heward, T. E. Heron, J. Trap-Porter, & D. S. Hill (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.Google Scholar
  8. Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  9. Logan, P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students’ perceptions of a math assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martens, B. K., Witt, J. C., Elliott, S. N., & Darveaux, D. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., Turner, H. C., & Saecker, L. B. (2006). Increasing multiplication fact fluency using a low-tech, class-wide, time-delay intervention. School Psychology Review, 35, 419–435.Google Scholar
  13. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seatwork by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23–32.Google Scholar
  14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  15. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and comparing interventions designed to enhance math-fact accuracy and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & O’Mara, T. (2006). Detect, practice, and repair (PPR): The effects of a class-wide intervention on elementary students’ math-fact fluency. Journal of Evidence Based Practices for Schools, 7, 47–68.Google Scholar
  17. Rhymer, K. N., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, S., McNeill, S., Smith, T., & Jackson, B. (2002). The 1-minute explicit timing intervention: The influence of mathematics problem difficulty. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 305–311.Google Scholar
  18. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatment design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  19. Skinner, C. H. (2002). An empirical analysis of interspersal research: Evidence, implications and applications of the discrete task completion hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skinner, C. H., Adamson, K. L., Woodward, J. R., Jackson, R. R., Atchison, L. A., & Mims, J. W. (1993). A comparison of fast rate, slow rate, and silent previewing interventions on reading performance. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 674–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997a). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Henington, C. (1996). Increasing learning trial rates by increasing student response rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Skinner, C. H., Logan, P., Robinson, S. L., & Robinson, D. H. (1997b). Myths and realities of modeling as a reading intervention: Beyond acquisition. School Psychology Review, 26, 437–447.Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, C. H., Pappas, D. N., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Enhancing academic engagement: Providing opportunities for responding and influencing students to choose to respond. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education-and-Treatment-of-Children, 12, 123–133.Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, C. H., Shapiro, E. S., Turco, T. L., Cole, C. L., & Brown, D. K. (1992). A comparison of self- and peer-delivered immediate corrective feedback on multiplication performance. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skinner, C. H., & Smith, E. S. (1992). Issues surrounding the use of self-managed interventions for increasing academic performance. School Psychology Review, 21, 202–210.Google Scholar
  28. Skinner, C. H., Smith, E. S., & McLean, J. E. (1994). The effects of intertrial interval duration on sight-word learning during constant time delay. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 98–107.Google Scholar
  29. Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989). Cover, copy, and compare: A method for increasing multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18, 412–420.Google Scholar
  30. Sutherland, K. S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. VanDer Heyden, M., Broussard, C., Fabre, M., Stanley, J., Legendre, J., & Creppell, R. (2004). Development and validation of curriculum-based measures of math performance for preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Problems and issues in definition of learning disabilities. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 3–26). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stacy L. Bliss
    • 1
  • Christopher H. Skinner
    • 1
  • Elizabeth McCallum
    • 2
  • Lee B. Saecker
    • 1
  • Emily Rowland-Bryant
    • 1
  • Katie S. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations