A Comparison of Math Cover, Copy, Compare Intervention Procedures for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Morton and team asked a simple question. Does the order of steps in Cover-Copy-Compare math drills matter for kids with autism?

They tried two sequences. One group used Cover, Copy, Compare. The other used Copy, Cover, Compare. Kids did the same math facts each day.

The study used single-case design. Each child tried both methods in a balanced order.

Both methods worked equally well. Kids solved math facts at the same speed and accuracy no matter which order they used.

The researchers found no meaningful difference between the two procedures. The order of copy versus cover simply didn't matter.

This finding seems to clash with Tonizzi et al. (2023). Their meta-analysis of 13 studies showed autistic students score lower on math tests than peers. But Morton looked at which teaching method works better, not whether kids struggle. The papers answer different questions.

Grow et al. (2017) used the same comparison approach. They tested two ways to teach sight words to a child with autism. Like Morton, they found one streamlined method worked just as well. Both studies show small procedural tweaks often don't change outcomes.

Titeca et al. (2014) found that preschool counting skills predict later math success in autism. Morton's work builds on this by showing once kids are ready for fluency drills, the specific format matters less than we thought.

You can stop overthinking CCC procedures. Pick whichever version your student finds easier or you can implement faster. This frees up time to focus on bigger issues like motivation, prerequisite skills, or generalization. The study reminds us to test our assumptions about 'optimal' methods. Sometimes good enough is truly good enough.