Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 33–50 | Cite as

Effect of Modifying Intervention Set Size with Acquisition Rate Data Among Students Identified with a Learning Disability

  • Katherine Haegele
  • Matthew K. Burns
Original Paper


The amount of information that students can successfully learn and recall at least 1 day later is called an acquisition rate (AR) and is unique to the individual student. The current study extended previous drill rehearsal research with word recognition by (a) using students identified with a learning disability in reading, (b) assessing set sizes based on AR to determine efficiency, and (c) examining generalization. One fourth- and two fifth-grade male students identified with a learning disability in reading were taught words in sets of two, eight, and their individual AR. Retention was higher in the AR condition, and the AR condition was more efficient than the other two. Implications for future research are included.


Flashcards Incremental rehearsal Set size Acquisition rate 



The current study was funded by a Grant from the Learning Disabilities Foundation.


  1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for classroom teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, M. K. (2001). Measuring acquisition and retention rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, M. K. (2004a). Age as a predictor of acquisition rates as measured by curriculum-based assessment: Evidence of consistency with cognitive research. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29(2), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, M. K. (2004b). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, M. K. (2007). Comparison of drill ratio and opportunities to respond when rehearsing sight words with a child with mental retardation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284–292.Google Scholar
  8. Burns, M. K., & Dean, V. J. (2005). Effect of acquisition rates on off-task behavior with children identified as learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Burns, M. K., & Mosack, J. (2005). Criterion-referenced validity of measuring acquisition rates with curriculum-based assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, M. K., & Sterling-Turner, H. (2010). Comparison of efficiency measures for academic interventions based on acquisition and maintenance of the skill. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burns, M. K., Zaslofsky, A. F., Kanive, R., & Parker, D. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of incremental rehearsal: Using phi coefficients to compare single-case and group designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.Google Scholar
  14. Cates, G. L., Skinner, C. H., Watson, T. S., Meadows, T. J., Weaver, A., & Jackson, B. (2003). Instructional effectiveness and instructional efficiency as considerations for data-based decision making: An evaluation of interspersing procedures. School Psychology Review, 32, 601–616.Google Scholar
  15. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Ceraso, J. (1967). The interference theory of forgetting. Scientific American, 217, 117–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Daly, E., Martens, B. K., Barnett, D., Witt, J. C., & Olson, S. C. (2007). Varying intervention delivery in response to intervention: Confronting and resolving challenges with measurement, instruction, and intensity. School Psychology Review, 36, 562–581.Google Scholar
  18. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B., Stuebing, K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.Google Scholar
  20. Fry, E. B., & Kress, J. E. (2006). The reading teacher’s book of lists (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (Rtl) and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disability, 11, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 885–898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  26. Gravois, T. A., & Gickling, E. (2008). Best practices in instructional assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 503–518). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  27. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic performance. In W. Heward, T. Heron, D. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58–88). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  28. Hargis, C. H., Terhaar-Yonkers, M., Williams, P. C., & Reed, M. T. (1988). Repetition requirements for word recognition. Journal of Reading, 31, 320–327.Google Scholar
  29. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kame'enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Kupzyk, S., Daly, E. J., & Andersen, M. N. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 781–792.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Minnesota Department of Education. (1998). SLD companion manual. St. Paul, MN: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Nist, L., & Joseph, L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–308.Google Scholar
  34. Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  35. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., Mace, H. W., Williams-Wilson, S., & Johns, G. A. (1997). Altering response topography to increase response efficiency and learning rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skinner, C. H., Belfiore, P. J., & Watson, T. S. (1995). Assessing the relative effects of interventions in students with mild disabilities: Assessing instructional time. Assessments in Rehabilitation and Exceptionality, 20, 207–220.Google Scholar
  37. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Swanson, H. L. (2003). Age-related differences in learning disabled and skilled readers’ working memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 1–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2007). The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 249–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Szadokierski, I., & Burns, M. K. (2008). Analogue evaluation of the effects of opportunities to respond and ratios of known items within drill rehearsal of Esperanto words. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 593–609.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on student’s reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.Google Scholar
  42. Tucker, J. A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, School of Education, University of Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations