Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


9109.pdf (1.08 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

An Examination of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Detect, Practice, and Repair versus Traditional Cover, Copy, and Compare Procedures: A Component Analysis

Rahschulte, Rebecca L
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1397467277

Abstract Details

2014, PhD, University of Cincinnati, Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services: School Psychology.
This study compared the effects of the Detect, Practice, and Repair (DPR) intervention package versus traditional Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) procedures in increasing multiplication math fact accuracy and fluency using an alternating treatments design with a modified control condition. Interventions were administered one-on-one across 4 fourth grade students. Three mutually exclusive multiplication sets were used with one set being assigned to each condition. Effectiveness was assessed through traditional curriculum-based measurement (CBM) procedures and through flashcard card procedures to measure accuracy. In addition, the efficiency of each intervention (i.e., amount of learning per instructional minute) was calculated. Maintenance data were collected to determine if newly learned math facts would be better maintained when taught with the DPR intervention or with the traditional CCC intervention procedures. Social validity data were collected with teachers and students to determine whether one intervention was preferred over another. Although DPR has been examined in five published research studies, it has never been examined through a one-on-one implementation or in a study directly comparing its effectiveness, efficiency, maintenance, and social validity against another intervention. In addition, this study serves as a component analysis since CCC is one component of the DPR package.
Julie Morrison, Ph.D. (Committee Chair)
Anne Bauer, Ed.D. (Committee Member)
Renee Oliver Hawkins, Ph.D. (Committee Member)
96 p.
Education
Detect, Practice, and Repair; Cover, Copy, and Compare; DPR; Intervention Efficiency; Math Fact Fluency; CCC

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Rahschulte, R. L. (2014). An Examination of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Detect, Practice, and Repair versus Traditional Cover, Copy, and Compare Procedures: A Component Analysis [Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1397467277

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Rahschulte, Rebecca. An Examination of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Detect, Practice, and Repair versus Traditional Cover, Copy, and Compare Procedures: A Component Analysis. 2014. University of Cincinnati, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1397467277.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Rahschulte, Rebecca. "An Examination of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Detect, Practice, and Repair versus Traditional Cover, Copy, and Compare Procedures: A Component Analysis." Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2014. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1397467277

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

ucin1397467277
551
© 2014, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by University of Cincinnati and OhioLINK.