A Comparison of Taped Problems and Explicit Timing Interventions on Second-Grade Students’ Subtraction Fluency

Abstract

An adapted alternating treatments design was used to compare the effects of class-wide applications of Taped Problems (TP) and Explicit Timing (ET) interventions on digits correct per minute (DCPM) scores. The study also investigated whether initial fluency scores would differentiate intervention effectiveness between TP and ET procedures. Results showed that both TP and ET resulted in similar DCPM increases, with both approaches significantly outperforming a control condition. Although the interventions showed similar effectiveness at the class-wide level, the interaction between intervention type and initial fluency levels suggested a differential effect. For students with initial fluency scores in the frustrational range (≤10 DCPM), it was found that TP resulted in a higher growth rate than both ET and the control. For students with initial fluency scores in the instructional range (>10 DCPM), both ET and TP interventions resulted in higher DCPM scores than control but did not differ from one another. The discussion focuses on using skill by treatment interactions to inform intervention selection, explores opportunities and challenges in this research area, and addresses study limitations.

Impact Statement

This study compares two empirically based interventions, Taped Problems and Explicit Timing, to determine which one is more effective to increase digits correct per minute (DCPM) scores. Results showed that both interventions could be successfully used to increase student DCPM scores but that for students initially scoring below 10 DCPM Taped Problems was more effective.

Keywords:

• intervention
• math
• response to intervention
• intervention
• academic

ASSOCIATE EDITOR:

• Tanya L. Eckert

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Notes

1 β₄₀ and β₅₀ are thus doubly reported in tables, based on whether the coefficient represented ET vs. control or ET vs. TP.

2 We caution that, although Feingold (2009) argued for the equivalency of this effect size for multilevel models of experimental data, as compared to Cohen’s d, we know of no normative range of effects for this estimator for single-case designs.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Scuddy Fontenelle

Scuddy Fontenelle IV, PhD, BCBA-D, is an assistant professor of clinical child psychology in the Toddler Developmental Disabilities Program. His specialties include assessment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the treatment of behavioral difficulties displayed by children with ASD and other developmental disorders. He received his doctorate at Oklahoma State University.

Brian C. Poncy

Brian C. Poncy, PhD, is an associate professor of school psychology at Oklahoma State University. His research interests include academic interventions, behavioral learning theory, and single-case design methodologies. He received his doctorate at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville.

Benjamin G. Solomon

Benjamin G. Solomon, PhD, is an assistant professor of school psychology at the University at Albany–SUNY. His research interests include evidence-based behavioral prevention, teacher consultation, statistics, and the measurement of effective teaching behaviors. He received his doctorate at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Greg Schutte

Greg M. Schutte, PhD, BCBA-D, is a school psychologist at Keystone Area Education Agency in Decorah, Iowa. His research interests include academic and behavioral interventions. He received his doctorate at Oklahoma State University.

Emily Loethen

Emily Loethen is a graduate student in the Oklahoma State University School Psychology Program. Her research interests include academic and behavioral intervention and behavioral learning theory.