This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lee Swanson, H. Articles by Sachse-Lee, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee Swanson, H. Articles by Sachse-Lee, C. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

A Meta-Analysis of Single-Subject-Design Intervention Research for Students with LD

School of Education, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521

Carole Sachse-Lee

This article summarizes single-subject-design intervention studies that include students with learning disabilities. Effect sizes of 85 studies were analyzed across instructional domains (e.g., reading, mathematics); sample characteristics (e.g., age, intelligence); intervention parameters (e.g., number of instructional sessions, instructional components); and methodological procedures (e.g., internal validity, treatment integrity, sample representation). The major findings were as follows: (a) All domain areas except handwriting yielded effect sizes at or above Cohen's .80 threshold for a substantial finding; (b) instructional components related to drill-repetition-practice-review, segmentation, small interactive groups, and the implementation of cues to use strategies contributed significant variance (15%) to estimates of effect size; (c) strategy instruction (SI) models better predicted effect size estimates than direct instruction (DI) models when the results were qualified by the reported intellectual and reading levels of the participants; (d) high-IQ discrepancy groups yielded lower effect sizes compared to low-IQ discrepancy groups in the domain of reading, whereas the reverse effect occurred when treatment outcomes were not reading measures; and (e) the low-IQ discrepancy groups yielded higher effect sizes for a Combined DI and SI Model when compared to competing models. The results are supportive of the pervasive influence of cognitive strategy and direct instruction models across treatment domains and of the notion that variations in sample definition moderate treatment outcomes.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Tran Nguyen Templeton, R. S. Neel, and E. Blood Meta-Analysis of Math Interventions for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, December 1, 2008; 16(4): 226 - 239. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. L. Trout, T. Ortiz Lienemann, R. Reid, and M. H. Epstein A Review of Non-Medication Interventions to Improve the Academic Performance of Children and Youth With ADHD Remedial and Special Education, August 1, 2007; 28(4): 207 - 226. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. J. Randolph Meta-Analysis of the Research on Response Cards: Effects on Test Achievement, Quiz Achievement, Participation, and Off-Task Behavior Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, April 1, 2007; 9(2): 113 - 128. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Alwell and B. Cobb A Map of the Intervention Literature in Secondary Special Education Transition Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, January 1, 2006; 29(1): 3 - 27. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. B. Ryan, R. Reid, and M. H. Epstein Peer-Mediated Intervention Studies on Academic Achievement for Students with EBD: A Review Remedial and Special Education, December 1, 2004; 25(6): 330 - 341. [Abstract] [PDF]