etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations on Dependent Variables Measures within-group regression. Analyses of the covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to compare the posttest scores of the three treatment groups on all four dependent variables. One-way AN- COVA showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in posttest scores after controlling for pretest scores on either Letter-Word Identification or the Word Attack. One-way ANCOVA for training word identification showed a significant difference between treatment groups in posttest scores after controlling for pretest scores, F(2,48) 16.353, p .01. Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni’s corrected values for the means (synthetic M 6.36, analogy M 5.29, control M 3.32) showed a significant difference between the adjusted means of the synthetic phonics treatment group and the control group. The difference between the adjusted Synthetic (n 17) Analogy (n 18) Control (n 17) Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Letter-Word ID 14.59 16.24 15.28 16.78 13.82 14.06 (11.59) (11.50) (7.29) (7.75) (9.44) (9.06) Word Attack 1.62 4.12 1.67 3.61 1.78 2.29 (3.11) (5.26) (1.61) (2.33) (1.24) (2.73) Training Word 4.95 11.18 3.94 9.78 3.41 3.94 (10.69) (11.24) (8.19) (9.74) (4.96) (5.73) Transfer Word 4.00 7.35 3.00 5.19 2.06 3.23 (9.75) (11.04) (7.75) (7.94) (3.83) (4.08) TABLE 5 Correlations of Pretest and Posttest Variables Synthetic Phonics (n 17) mean scores was 5.639, (ES 0.542). There was also a significant difference between the adjusted means of the analogy phonics treatment group and the control group. The difference between the adjusted mean scores was 5.281, (ES0.508). In both the treatment groups (synthetic phonics and analogy phonics) the means were higher than the mean of the control group. There was not a significant difference between the adjusted mean of the synthetic phonics group and the analogy phonics groups. Pairwise comparisons are reported in Table 6. One-way ANCOVA for transfer word identification showed that there was a significant difference between treatment groups on posttest scores after controlling for pretest scores, F(2,48) 4.293, p .05. Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni’s corrected values for Analogy Phonics (n 18) Control (n 17) Total Sample (N 52) Pre/Post .97** .95** .98** .96** Letter-Word Identification Pre/Post .97** .82** .72** .90** Word Attack Pre/Post .93** .94** .96** .90** training words Pre/Post .96** .88** .91** .92** Transfer words ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). 274 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
TABLE 6 Pairwise Comparisons on Posttest Scores for Training and Transfer Word Identification (I) Group (J) Group the means showed a significant difference between the adjusted means of the synthetic phonics treatment group and the control group. The difference between the adjusted mean scores was 3.039, (ES 0.330). Posttest scores were significantly higher in training word identification in children with significant cognitive disability for both the synthetic and analogy phonics treatment groups than that of the control group, with the posttest scores of the synthetic phonics treatment group being significantly higher than those of the analogy phonics treatment group. The scores of the synthetic phonics treatment group were also significantly higher than the control group in transfer word identification. Additional Analyses Two further questions arose in the course of the study that warranted further investigation. First, even though the experimental groups did not differ significantly from the control on either Letter-Word Identification or Word Attack, did participants’ performance on those measures improve over the course of the study? Paired-samples t tests were conducted to pretest and posttest scores. Significant differences were found between the mean of the pretest and the mean of the posttest for the synthetic phonics treatment group t(16)2.384, p .030, .05 and the analogy phonics treatment group t(17) 2.519, p .022, .05 on Letter-Word Identification. Significant differences were found between the mean of the Mean Error Difference (I-J) Std. Sig. Training Word Identification Control Synthetic 5.639* 1.110 .000 Analogy 5.281* 1.091 .000 Synthetic Analogy .359 1.092 1.000 Transfer Word Identification Control Synthetic 3.039* 1.046 .017 Analogy 1.176 1.027 .774 Synthetic Analogy 1.863 1.027 .228 * The mean is significant at the .05 level. pretest and the mean of the posttest for all three treatment conditions on Word Attack; synthetic phonics treatment group t(16)3.955, p .001, .01, analogy phonics treatment group t(17) 6.115, p .000, .05 and control t(16)2.273, p .037, .05. Using estimated values for age and grade equivalency provided by the WJIII DRB (Table 7) it can be seen that on Letter-Word Identification improvement was commensurate with the time spent on instruction, about 12 months. However, on Word Attack age and grade equivalencies for the synthetic and analogy phonics treatment groups went up a full year. Secondly, were there individual differences among participants with significant cognitive disability in their response to systematic phonics instruction? Nine participants in the study scored zero on the pretests and posttests on both training word identification and transfer word identification. ANOVAs were conducted to compare these nine participants with the other forty-three participants in the study on age, IQ and pretest scores on the four dependent variables. There were significant differences on the Letter-Word identification pretest F(1,51) 13.264, p .05 and the Word Attack pretest F(1,51) 4.679, p .05. It was also detected that five participants in the study had scores greater than 20 words correct on the pretest for training word identification. ANOVAs showed there were significant differences between these five participants and all the other participants on all four pretests, but no significant differences were Effects of Systematic Phonics / 275
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 7 and 8: ities. Scholars have argued that do
Page 9 and 10: discussions were held with 12 addit
Page 11 and 12: TABLE 1 A Sample of Community Funds
Page 13 and 14: et al., 2007). At the school, stude
Page 15 and 16: students opportunities to work and
Page 17 and 18: Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
Page 21 and 22: of words, and in the short term wer
Page 23: TABLE 3 Word Lists List No. Trainin
Page 27 and 28: Word Identification or Word Attack
Page 29 and 30: erate to severe disabilities. Excep
Page 31 and 32: ess in a variety of subjects includ
Page 33 and 34: TABLE 1 Target Vocabulary Words by
Page 35 and 36: Figure 1. Example of PowerPoint Sli
Page 37 and 38: TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4. Jake’s percentages corr
Page 41 and 42: man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
Page 45 and 46: used in the study that did not foll
Page 47 and 48: lected. Stories were read in a quie
Page 49 and 50: y determining the number of interva
Page 51 and 52: with the removal of the interventio
Page 53 and 54: Accordingly, recent research has in
Page 55 and 56: Method Participants Four male child
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 2 Play Scale - Developmental
Page 59 and 60: elated utterances, which were used
Page 61 and 62: Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5. Social Validity: Average
Page 67 and 68: (2000). A comparison of video model
Page 71 and 72: Method Participants Four high schoo
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Task Analyses for all Tasks
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Holly multiple baseline g
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 3. Norman multiple baseline
Page 79 and 80:
ing at photographs. Jake only requi
Page 81 and 82:
tion, some aspects of the target be
Page 83 and 84:
table video aids may lead to greate
Page 85 and 86:
TABLE 2 Task Analyses Including Vid
Page 87 and 88:
table.” During the session, the t
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
Page 91 and 92:
ter the 15 th session. With table w
Page 93 and 94:
our students, it may have been diff
Page 95 and 96:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 97 and 98:
TABLE 2 Participants Demographic Da
Page 99 and 100:
opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 101 and 102:
TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answe
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105 and 106:
serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108:
and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
& Cobb, 2002). Generalization, the
Page 113 and 114:
academic activities in the classroo
Page 115 and 116:
Procedure Baseline. In this multipl
Page 117 and 118:
condition for each student. With th
Page 119 and 120:
was repeated across all participant
Page 121 and 122:
Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 1 Student demographic informa
Page 127 and 128:
ping, dining out, voting) and diffe
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE 2 Content Standards, Alternat
Page 131 and 132:
Student Achievement Figures 3-6 pro
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 4. Student data across math
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 6. Student data across math
Page 137 and 138:
A second limitation of the current
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
y students with intellectual disabi
Page 143 and 144:
TABLE 1 Studies of Mathematics Inte
Page 145 and 146:
subject design to provide an interv
Page 147 and 148:
Neef and colleagues (2003) demonstr
Page 149 and 150:
abilities. Education and Training i
Page 151 and 152:
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?