Brief experimental analysis of sight word interventions: a comparison of acquisition and maintenance of detected interventions.
A 20-minute BEA picked the sight-word tactic that cut learning time in half for one child.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Baranek et al. (2011) ran a 10-condition brief experimental analysis on one struggling reader. They compared sight-word teaching tricks like cover-copy-compare, peer modeling, and repeated reading in rapid turns.
Each method got only a few minutes. The team tracked how fast the child learned new words and how many stuck the next day.
What they found
Two methods looked equal in the mini-test. When the team ran a longer trial, one method reached mastery in half the sessions.
A second BEA on new words gave the same winner, so the result was reliable.
How this fits with other research
Schmidt et al. (2021) used the same BEA logic to pick NCR or DRO for problem behavior. Both studies show a 5-minute alternating-treatments probe can find the best fit for one learner, whether the goal is reading or compliance.
McIntyre et al. (2002) also ran a reading BEA but saw mixed results: four kids gained fluency, two did not. Their mixed outcome warns us to check each student; Amy’s single case found a clear winner, yet both papers say ‘verify per learner.’
Castañe et al. (1993) compared only two sight-word error fixes, while Amy tested ten. The older study still used alternating treatments, proving the design has long helped teachers sort reading options quickly.
Why it matters
You can copy this 10-tactic menu in a 20-minute slot. Run each method for one short burst, graph the words learned, and keep the top two for extended teaching. It saves weeks of guessing and keeps the child from sitting through dull drills that do not work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →List your top five sight-word tricks, run each for two minutes, and keep the one that gives the fastest correct responses.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine utility of a brief experimental analysis (BEA) in determining effective sight word interventions for a student with a history of difficulty with acquiring sight word recognition. Ten interventions were compared in a BEA. Following the BEA, an extended analysis was conducted that compared the two most effective interventions (from the BEA) with a control condition. Even though the BEA found two interventions to be relatively equal, one of the two interventions resulted in acquisition in half the sessions as the other intervention and this was replicated in a second extended analysis. Implications for BEA and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Behavior modification, 2011 · doi:10.1177/0145445510391242