Transcript Minnesota School Psychologists Association Winter 2013 Conference

Training Undergraduate Students to Implement Brief Experimental Analysis
as Part of an After-School Reading Program
Karissa Danes, Kaitlin O’Shea, Kimberlee Maczko
D r. M e l i s s a C o o l o n g - C h a f f i n , & D r. M i c h a e l A x e l r o d
U n i v e r s i t y o f Wi s c o n s i n — E a u C l a i r e
A
Why Use Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA)?
 Able to “test-drive” reading interventions to select the most promising intervention
for the student
 Can match the intervention to the student based on what works best
 Provides an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of an intervention before
implementing it for a significant amount of time
 Provides an opportunity to assess the feasibility of an intervention
 “Winning” intervention is selected and implemented throughout the semester to
help the student improve oral reading fluency.
140
Baseline
BEA Period
Reading Clinic at UWEC
Baseline
Follow-Up
120
Easy CBM Passage
100
80
High Content Overlap
Passage
60
40
AIMSWeb Oral
Reading Fluency
Passage
Intervention Period
Intervention Selected: Sight
Words + Listening Passage
Preview + Repeated Reading
20
0
Time
Objectives of Reading Clinic
 Provide brief academic interventions to students in an after-school program
 Train undergraduate students to:
-- Use Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) to link assessment data to
interventions
-- Implement evidence-based interventions
-- Accurately collect outcome data
 Develop a program that produces positive outcomes and high consumer
satisfaction
Demographics
 School Partnerships—two elementary schools
--At School One, 82% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch.
--At School Two, 46% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch.
 Interventionists
--Undergraduate students at UWEC
--Variety of majors & years in school
S
90
Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)
In an era of increased accountability and the resulting shift to implementing
evidence-based interventions within a problem solving framework, school
psychologists are faced with the challenge of helping teachers effectively and
efficiently match academic interventions to student needs. As resources become more
limited, schools also must become creative in order to provide the necessary support
services to their students.
The present study involves a partnership between the University of WisconsinEau Claire Academic Intervention Clinic (AIC) and local elementary schools in which
school psychology graduate students supervise undergraduate students as they deliver
evidence-based reading fluency interventions to 32 struggling 2nd and 3rd grade
students in an after school program.
Twenty undergraduate students were trained by AIC staff to use brief
experimental analysis (BEA) techniques as a way to “test drive” different
interventions in order to select a promising intervention for each participant. Once a
promising intervention was selected for each participant, the undergraduate
interventionists administered the intervention two times per week and collected
outcome data to measure the effectiveness of the intervention across time. Dependent
variables include curriculum based measures of reading (i.e., Intervention passages,
High Content Overlap passages and novel Oral Reading Fluency passages). Results
indicate that a promising intervention was identified for each participant. Data
collection is ongoing, but initial results indicate growth in reading fluency for
participants. In addition, undergraduate interventionists were able to implement the
interventions with fidelity. The present poster highlights how nontraditional
interventionists can be trained to conduct BEAs and implement the interventions
resulting in positive outcomes for struggling readers.
Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)
Abstract
Baseline
BEA Period
Baseline After
BEA
Outcome Data—School One
Follow-Up
* = Early Literacy Testing
80
Student
70
Easy CBM Passage
Baseline—
Beginning of
Semester
Last 3 Weeks Baseline—End
Intervention
of Semester
(Mean CWPM)
(Mean CWPM)
(Mean CWPM)
60
Percent
Growth
(Beginning Baseline to
End Baseline)
V
62
107
88
42.%
E
65
110
99
52%
C
77
99
108
40%
K*
16
36
25
56%
H*
23
69
29
26%
10
X*
28
47
40
43%
0
N*
14
51
26
86%
D*
11
51
37
236%
A
40
102
90
120%
50
High Content
Overlap Passage
40
Intervention Period
30
AIMSWeb Oral
Reading Fluency
Intervention Selected: Listening Passage
Preview
20
Time
Reading Clinic Training
BEA Model at Reading Clinic
 “Test-drive” seven different interventions
Repeated Reading (RR): The student reads the passage three times. During the third read,
the student reads the passage for one minute and the interventionist records errors.
Training Objectives
 Interventionists understand the purpose and process of baseline data collection.
 Interventionists demonstrate correct method of calculating Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM).
 Interventionists recognize the purpose and importance of progress monitoring, outcome measurement, and the process
of BEA
Sight Words and Repeated Reading (SW+RR): The interventionist reviews the sight
words with the student, and then the student reads the passage three times. During the third
read, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors.
Sight Words, Listening Passage Preview, and Repeated Reading (SW+LPP+RR): The
interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then reads the passage aloud to
the student. Then, the student reads the passage three times. During the third read, the
student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors.
Baseline—
Beginning of
Semester
Last 3 Weeks Baseline—End
Intervention
of Semester
(Mean CWPM)
(Mean CWPM)
(Mean CWPM)
Percent
Growth
(Beginning Baseline to
End Baseline)
30
55
41
37%
Social Acceptability Data
I
44
74
52
18%
Survey data based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from highly disagree (1) to highly agree (5).
R
31
56
35
13%
C
40
63
50
25%
L
32
67
58
81%
S
43
68
72
67%
B
33
54
33
0%
Sight Words (SW): The interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then
the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors.
Sight Words and Listening Passage Preview (SW+LPP): The interventionist reviews the
sight words with the student, and then reads the passage aloud to the student. Then, the
student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors.
Student
E
Listening Passage Preview (LPP): The interventionist reads the passage aloud to the
student, and then the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist
records errors.
Listening Passage Preview and Repeated Reading (LPP+RR): The interventionist reads
the passage aloud to the student, and then the student reads the passage three times. During
the third read, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records
errors.
Outcome Data—School Two
Item
Mean Fall 2011
Mean Spring 2012
BEA would be an acceptable assessment procedure to target a child’s reading fluency
problems.
4.82
4.83
Most school staff would recommend BEA when targeting reading fluency problems.
4.46
4.58
BEA would be effective at improving reading fluency.
4.64
4.75
N
59
63
45
0%
I would recommend BEA to other school staff.
4.56
5.0
T
22
44
37
68%
BEA would be appropriate for a variety of students.
4.10
4.83
BEA is a fair amount of work for a student to do.
4.10
4.50
BEA takes a reasonable amount of time for school staff to implement.
4.10
4.10
I liked the procedures used in the BEA.
4.64
4.58
Children are motivated to complete the BEA procedures.
3.91
3.83
Overall, BEA would benefit a student’s reading fluency.
4.55
4.83
We would like to thank our interventionists at UWEC for their hard work and dedication. Funding for this project
was supported, in part, by the UWEC Blugold Commitment/Differential Tuition Program and the Office of
Research and Sponsored Programs.
Fidelity Data
School
One
Procedural Measurement
Integrity
Fidelity
98%
98%
School
Two
Procedural Measurement
Integrity
Fidelity
90%
98%