Training Undergraduate Students to Implement Brief Experimental Analysis as Part of an After-School Reading Program Karissa Danes, Kaitlin O’Shea, Kimberlee Maczko Dr. Melissa Coolong-Chaffin, & Dr. Michael Axelrod University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire We would like to thank our interventionists at UWEC for their hard work and dedication. Funding for this project was supported, in part, by the UWEC Blugold Commitment/Differential Tuition Program and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. Abstract In an era of increased accountability and the resulting shift to implementing evidence-based interventions within a problem solving framework, school psychologists are faced with the challenge of helping teachers effectively and efficiently match academic interventions to student needs. As resources become more limited, schools also must become creative in order to provide the necessary support services to their students. The present study involves a partnership between the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire Academic Intervention Clinic (AIC) and local elementary schools in which school psychology graduate students supervise undergraduate students as they deliver evidence-based reading fluency interventions to 32 struggling 2 nd and 3 rd grade students in an after school program. Twenty undergraduate students were trained by AIC staff to use brief experimental analysis (BEA) techniques as a way to “test drive” different interventions in order to select a promising intervention for each participant. Once a promising intervention was selected for each participant, the undergraduate interventionists administered the intervention two times per week and collected outcome data to measure the effectiveness of the intervention across time. Dependent variables include curriculum based measures of reading (i.e., Intervention passages, High Content Overlap passages and novel Oral Reading Fluency passages). Results indicate that a promising intervention was identified for each participant. Data collection is ongoing, but initial results indicate growth in reading fluency for participants. In addition, undergraduate interventionists were able to implement the interventions with fidelity. The present poster highlights how nontraditional interventionists can be trained to conduct BEAs and implement the interventions resulting in positive outcomes for struggling readers. Reading Clinic at UWEC Objectives of Reading Clinic  Provide brief academic interventions to students in an after-school program  Train undergraduate students to: -- Use Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) to link assessment data to interventions -- Implement evidence-based interventions -- Accurately collect outcome data  Develop a program that produces positive outcomes and high consumer satisfaction Demographics  School Partnerships—two elementary schools --At School One, 82% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch. --At School Two, 46% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch.  Interventionists --Undergraduate students at UWEC --Variety of majors & years in school Why Use Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA)?  Able to “test-drive” reading interventions to select the most promising intervention for the student  Can match the intervention to the student based on what works best  Provides an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of an intervention before implementing it for a significant amount of time  Provides an opportunity to assess the feasibility of an intervention  “Winning” intervention is selected and implemented throughout the semester to help the student improve oral reading fluency. BEA Model at Reading Clinic  “Test-drive” seven different interventions Repeated Reading (RR): The student reads the passage three times. During the third read, the student reads the passage for one minute and the interventionist records errors. Listening Passage Preview (LPP): The interventionist reads the passage aloud to the student, and then the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Sight Words (SW): The interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Listening Passage Preview and Repeated Reading (LPP+RR): The interventionist reads the passage aloud to the student, and then the student reads the passage three times. During the third read, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Sight Words and Listening Passage Preview (SW+LPP): The interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then reads the passage aloud to the student. Then, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Sight Words and Repeated Reading (SW+RR): The interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then the student reads the passage three times. During the third read, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Sight Words, Listening Passage Preview, and Repeated Reading (SW+LPP+RR): The interventionist reviews the sight words with the student, and then reads the passage aloud to the student. Then, the student reads the passage three times. During the third read, the student reads the passage for one minute while the interventionist records errors. Reading Clinic Training Training Objectives  Interventionists understand the purpose and process of baseline data collection.  Interventionists demonstrate correct method of calculating Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM).  Interventionists recognize the purpose and importance of progress monitoring, outcome measurement, and the process of BEA Outcome Data—School One StudentBaseline— Beginning of Semester (Mean CWPM) Last 3 Weeks Intervention (Mean CWPM) Baseline—End of Semester (Mean CWPM) Percent Growth (Beginning Baseline to End Baseline) V % E % C % K* % H* % X* % N* % D* % A % Outcome Data—School Two StudentBaseline— Beginning of Semester (Mean CWPM) Last 3 Weeks Intervention (Mean CWPM) Baseline—End of Semester (Mean CWPM) Percent Growth (Beginning Baseline to End Baseline) E % I % R % C % L % S % B % N % T % Fidelity Data School One Procedural Integrity Measurement Fidelity 98% School Two Procedural Integrity Measurement Fidelity 90%98% Social Acceptability Data Survey data based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from highly disagree (1) to highly agree (5). ItemMean Fall 2011Mean Spring 2012 BEA would be an acceptable assessment procedure to target a child’s reading fluency problems Most school staff would recommend BEA when targeting reading fluency problems BEA would be effective at improving reading fluency I would recommend BEA to other school staff BEA would be appropriate for a variety of students BEA is a fair amount of work for a student to do BEA takes a reasonable amount of time for school staff to implement.4.10 I liked the procedures used in the BEA Children are motivated to complete the BEA procedures Overall, BEA would benefit a student’s reading fluency * = Early Literacy Testing