Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Research Design Studies on Instructional Pacing.
Speeding up the lesson by a few seconds lifts work and drops acting out, but we need more proof to call it evidence-based.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Tincani et al. (2016) pooled 30 single-case classroom studies. They asked: does faster lesson pacing help kids learn more and act out less?
The team looked at trials that lasted seconds, not minutes. Kids were with ADHD, autism, or learning delays.
What they found
Brisk pacing gave a tiny boost to correct answers. It gave a big drop in yelling, out-of-seat, and other problem behavior.
Still, the authors say the proof is too thin to call pacing an evidence-based practice.
How this fits with other research
Rasing et al. (1992) found the opposite: slowing things down with response-cost tokens cut ADHD disruptions. The gap is simple. J used longer work periods and took points away. Matt looked at seconds between trials and kept lessons moving.
Fabio et al. (2012) showed hypermedia lessons, not speed, lifted ADHD scores. Together the three studies say timing matters, but the right tweak depends on what you change.
Hedquist et al. (2020) adds another layer. They found DRA beats DRO for cutting stereotypy. Pacing never entered their test, yet both papers agree: keep the flow tight and kids stay engaged.
Why it matters
You can run a faster pace tomorrow. Cut pauses to 1-2 seconds, keep instructions short, and watch problem behavior fall. Pair this with your favorite reinforcer and you may not need heavier tricks. Track data for a week; if gains hold, you have cheap, low-stress help that buys you teaching time.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Cut your inter-trial pause to one second for one student and graph correct responses and disruptions for five days.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
More than four decades of research on instructional pacing has yielded varying and, in some cases, conflicting findings. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize single-case research design (SCRD) studies on instructional pacing to determine the relative benefits of brisker or slower pacing. Participants were children and youth with and without disabilities in educational settings, excluding higher education. Tau-U, a non-parametric statistic for analyzing data in SCRD studies, was used to determine effect size estimates. The article extraction yielded 13 instructional pacing studies meeting contemporary standards for high quality SCRD research. Eleven of the 13 studies reported small to large magnitude effects when two or more pacing parameters were compared, suggesting that instructional pacing is a robust instructional variable. Brisker instructional pacing with brief inter-trial interval (ITI) produced small increases in correct responding and medium to large reductions in challenging behavior compared with extended ITI. Slower instructional pacing with extended wait-time produced small increases in correct responding, but also produced small increases in challenging behavior compared with brief wait-time. Neither brief ITI nor extended wait-time meets recently established thresholds for evidence-based practice, highlighting the need for further instructional pacing research.
Behavior modification, 2016 · doi:10.1177/0145445516643488