Refining the experimental analysis of academic skills deficits: part II. Use of brief experimental analysis to evaluate reading fluency treatments.

Three elementary students who read slowly took part. The team ran a 30-minute mini-test each child. They tried three quick reading packages: repeated reading, listening while reading, and a reward for beating their last score.

Each package lasted only three minutes. The child read two new passages for every package. The researchers counted words read correctly per minute.

Every child sped up, but the best package differed. One child jumped 40 words per minute with repeated reading. Another gained most from listening while reading. The third needed the reward condition.

The gains showed up right away on hard and easy passages. The team picked the top package for each child in under half an hour.

Wilkins et al. (2009) also built verbal skill step-by-step, but they used full chaining with kids with autism. The target paper shows you can skip long chains when the goal is plain fluency.

Lindsley (1996) argues that fluent reading is just one long response chain. The brief analysis proves you can test and fix that chain in minutes, not weeks.

Delamater et al. (1986) replaced echolalia with correct answers using prompts. Both studies use single-case logic, yet the 2006 paper moves from error correction to speed building.

You can copy the 30-minute drill on Monday. Pick one pupil who stalls while reading. Run repeated reading, listen-then-read, and a timed contest. Graph words correct per minute for each. Keep the winner. No extra materials needed—just a stopwatch and fresh passages.