Case, Lisa Pericola; And Others (1992). Journal of Special Education, v26 n1 p1-19. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ448562
Reviewed: October 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Self-Regulated Strategy Development.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention Report (841 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Students were in self-contained fifth- or sixth-grade classrooms in an urban elementary school in the northeastern United States.
This study included four children (Ben, Abernathy, Willow, and Paladin) with learning disabilities. All four students were 11 years old and in self-contained fifth- or sixth-grade classrooms in an urban elementary school in the northeastern United States. Students had IQ scores between 77 and 82 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) and achievement at least 2 years below grade level on one or more academic areas. Paladin’s contrast was not included in the current review, as his baseline phase was not concurrent with the baseline phases of the other three students.
There were two successive SRSD intervention conditions: addition instruction and subtraction instruction, both of which used SRSD procedures that focused on self-assessment and self-recording. The addition instruction was given first, and the subtraction instruction was given after addition outcomes were measured. Due to possible carryover or residual treatment effects from the addition intervention, the subtraction outcomes measured after the subtraction instruction cannot meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the subtraction intervention. Thus, the current review focuses on the addition SRSD instruction and addition outcomes. SRSD was used to improve students’ mathematical problem-solving skills. Instruction included asking students to list words that indicated when addition (or subtraction) should be used; the instructor gave students cards with vocabulary words and examples to help students learn key phrases and cue words within word problems. The instructor had a conference with each student to discuss their performance and the goals of the instruction and then introduced the strategy (for example, reading the problem out loud, looking for and circling important words, drawing a picture, writing a sentence, and writing the answer). The instructor modeled the strategy using a think-aloud process, worked through problems with the student, and then asked the student to independently use the strategy to solve problems. The addition intervention was implemented during 35-minute sessions, two-to-three times a week. Ben, Abernathy, and Willow received 165, 130, and 180 minutes of addition instruction, respectively.
The study used a multiple baseline design experiment across participants. The baseline condition consisted of normal classroom practice.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube