RESUMO
Working with elementary students with disabilities, we used alternating treatment designs to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 computer-based flash card sight-word reading interventions, 1 with 1-s response intervals and another with 5-s response intervals. In Study 1, we held instructional time constant, applying both interventions for 3 min. Although students completed 6 learning trials per word during each 1-s session and 2 trials per word during each 5-s session, results showed similar acquisition rates for 1-s and 5-s words. During Study 2, we held learning trials constant (3 per word) and allowed instructional time to vary. When we measured learning using cumulative instructional sessions, the interventions appeared to cause similar increases in acquisition rates. When the same learning data were measured and plotted using cumulative instructional seconds, all participants showed greater learning rates under the 1-s intervention. Discussion focuses on how measurement scales can influence comparative effectiveness studies.
Assuntos
Educação de Pessoa com Deficiência Intelectual/métodos , Deficiências da Aprendizagem/reabilitação , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Leitura , Retenção Psicológica/fisiologia , Aprendizagem Verbal/fisiologia , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Deficiências da Aprendizagem/etiologia , Masculino , Estimulação LuminosaRESUMO
Using alternating treatments designs, we compared learning rates across 2 computer-based flash-card interventions (3 min each): a traditional drill intervention with 15 unknown words and an interspersal intervention with 12 known words and 3 unknown words. Each student acquired more words under the traditional drill intervention. Discussion focuses on the need to account for instructional time when learning procedures are evaluated and compared.
