Self-Monitoring During Spelling Practice: Effects on Spelling Accuracy and On-Task Behavior of Three Students Diagnosed With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Rafferty, L., Arroyo, J., Ginnane, S., & Wilczynski, K. (2011). Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391773.
-
examining3Students, grade5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Self-monitoring - Rafferty et al. (2011))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet without reservations.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 33%
Male: 67% -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast
-
Race White 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The students attended a rural elementary school in the Northeastern region of the United States. The intervention was delivered to three students in an independent spelling practice period in a general education environment.
Study sample
The study sample is 100% White. Two-thirds of the students are male and one-third is female. All students were in fifth grade and diagnosed with ADHD.
Intervention Group
The study evaluates the effectiveness of a self-monitoring intervention administered during a spelling practice period. Students were provided a self-monitoring worksheet and headset that provided them with regular prompts to tally whether they were on or off task when they heard a tone. The intervention phases lasted 5 to 13 sessions depending on the student. Each session took place during the first 15 minutes of the 90-minute instructional period, when the students spent time studying their weekly spelling words.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group for single-case designs. During the baseline condition, the teacher continued their business-as-usual practices. Students were given any materials they needed to complete their written spelling practice. The classroom would discuss the classroom rules and the strategy the students were intended to use for spelling practice.
Support for implementation
The teacher, who was a co-author on the study, implemented all experimental procedures, including teaching the students and training the students on the self-monitoring tool. The authors helped create the self-monitoring cards used by the students. The teacher monitored students to ensure that they continued to implement the steps of the spelling strategy and self-monitoring procedures correctly.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).