Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
TABLE 2<br />
Percent Correct <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Acquisiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> Applicati<strong>on</strong> of Test-taking Strategies<br />
by at least 10 points for each participant <strong>on</strong><br />
both <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> tests measuring strategy applicati<strong>on</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> probes measuring achievement. All<br />
students reached 80% mastery <strong>on</strong> achievement<br />
probes <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> tests designed to measure<br />
test-taking applicati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Strategy Applicati<strong>on</strong><br />
Test Br<strong>and</strong>y John Sarah Amy<br />
Pretest 19 40 28 27<br />
Training<br />
C<strong>on</strong>trolled Practice 1 83 86 88 89<br />
C<strong>on</strong>trolled Practice 2 75 92 72 85<br />
C<strong>on</strong>trolled Practice 3 81 – 86 79<br />
C<strong>on</strong>trolled Practice 4 86 – 92 81<br />
C<strong>on</strong>trolled Practice 5 93 – – 90<br />
Post-training (with feedback)<br />
Advanced Practice 1 100 100 86 79<br />
Advanced Practice 2 93 100 71 93<br />
Advanced Practice 3 93 100 93 93<br />
Advanced Practice 4 93 100 86 93<br />
Advanced Practice 5 93 100 86 83<br />
Posttest 90 92 86 85<br />
Post-training (without feedback)<br />
Maintenance 93 86 86 86<br />
Generalizati<strong>on</strong> 1 86 58 55 83<br />
Generalizati<strong>on</strong> 2 86 86 80 80<br />
Results <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test-taking applicati<strong>on</strong> showed<br />
that Br<strong>and</strong>y <strong>and</strong> John both memorized <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
steps of <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test-taking strategy as dem<strong>on</strong>strated<br />
by verbal repetiti<strong>on</strong> in <strong>on</strong>ly two attempts.<br />
Sarah <strong>and</strong> Amy had some difficulty<br />
memorizing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> steps of <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test-taking strategy,<br />
taking <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m five <strong>and</strong> six attempts, respectively,<br />
to verbally repeat <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> strategy correctly.<br />
Both Sarah <strong>and</strong> Amy had lower verbal ability<br />
scores <strong>on</strong> previous evaluati<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g all participants,<br />
thus it is possible that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir difficulty<br />
memorizing <strong>and</strong> repeating <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> strategy could<br />
be attributed to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> lower verbal ability.<br />
Data were also collected to determine <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
level of accuracy with which each participant<br />
applied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test-taking strategy prior to training,<br />
during training, <strong>and</strong> post training, as<br />
measured by percent correct <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pretest,<br />
c<strong>on</strong>trolled practice tests, advanced practice<br />
tests, <strong>and</strong> posttest. All participants reached<br />
mastery of 80% correct during c<strong>on</strong>trolled<br />
practice <strong>and</strong> advanced practice, <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>on</strong>strated<br />
significant gains from pretest to posttest<br />
in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir test-taking ability. Results are presented<br />
in Table 2.<br />
Achievement Probes<br />
404 / Educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008<br />
Achievement probes results (see Figure 2)<br />
also support <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effectiveness of <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> interventi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Br<strong>and</strong>y obtained a mean percent score of<br />
55 (range 50–60) <strong>on</strong> achievement probes during<br />
baseline <strong>and</strong> a mean percent score of 77.4<br />
(range 55–90) during post-training sessi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />
Her lowest score, at 55 percent during <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
sec<strong>on</strong>d post-training sessi<strong>on</strong>, could be attributed<br />
to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> level of reading difficulty of <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
probe. The first author observed her having<br />
difficulty reading <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> passages in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> probe<br />
which negatively impacted her score, <strong>and</strong> adjusted<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> subsequent probes to match her<br />
instructi<strong>on</strong>al reading level. John obtained a<br />
mean percent score of 55 (range 55–65) <strong>on</strong><br />
baseline probes <strong>and</strong> improved his score to<br />
82.4 (range 80–84) during post-training. Similarly,<br />
Sarah <strong>and</strong> Amy dem<strong>on</strong>strated substantial<br />
improvements <strong>on</strong> achievement probes,<br />
from a mean percent score of 45.5 (range<br />
35–55) <strong>and</strong> 49.1 (range 30–65), respectively,