Interspersing additional easier items to enhance mathematics performance on subtests requiring different task demands

School Psychology Quarterly

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 191-205

  Robinson, Sheri L ^a   Skinner, Christopher H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038170062     PISSN: 10453830     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1521/scpq.17.2.191.20858     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Allison, D. E. (1984). The effect of item-difficulty sequence, intelligence, and sex on test performance, reliability, and item difficulty and discrimination. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance Counseling, 16, 211-217.
2. Belfiore, P., Lee, D., Vargas, A., & Skinner, C. (1997). Effects of high-preference single-digit mathematics problem completion on multiple-digit mathematics problem performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 327-330.
3. Cates, G. L., & Skinner, C. H. (2000). Getting remedial mathematics students to prefer homework with 40% more problems? An investigation of the strength of the interspersal procedure. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 339-347.
4. Connolly, A. J. (1988). KeyMath-Revised: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematics. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc.
5. Cooke, N. L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J. S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 213-234.
6. Dambrot, F. (1980). Test item order and academic ability, or should you shuffle the test item deck? Teaching of Psychology, 7, 94-96.
7. Dickinson, D. J., & Butts, J. A. (1989). The effects of success and failure on the on-task behavior of high achieving students. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 243-253.
8. Gickling, E. E., & Thompson, V. P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
9. Hutchinson, J., & Belfiore, P. (1998). Adding a sequence of high-preference mathematics problems to increase low-preference mathematics problems performance. Proven Practice, 1, 12-16.
10. Klimko, I. P. (1984). Item arrangement, cognitive entry characteristics, sex, and test anxiety as predictors of achievement examination performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 214-219.
11. Klosner, N. C., & Gellman, E. K. (1973). The effect of item arrangement on classroom test performance: Implications for content validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 413-418.
12. Logan, P., & Skinner, C. H. (1998). Improving students' perceptions of a mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event? School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322-331.
13. McCurdy, M., Skinner, C. H., Grantham, K., Watson, T. S., & Hindman, P. M. (2001). Increasing on-task behavior in an elementary student during mathematics seat-work by interspersing additional brief problems. School Psychology Review, 30, 23-32.
14. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sight-reading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738.
15. Neef, N. A., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1980). The effects of interspersal training versus high-density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153-158.
16. Plake, B. S., Patience, W., & Whitney, D. (1988). Differential item performance in mathematics achievement test items: Effect of item arrangement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 885-894.
17. Roberts, M. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Effects of instructional ratios on students' reading performance in a regular education program. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 73-91.
18. Roberts, M. L., Turco, T., & Shapiro, E. S. (1991). Differential effects of fixed instructional ratios on student's progress in reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 308-318.
19. Sax, G., & Carr, A. (1962). An investigation of response sets on altered parallel forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 371-376.
20. Shapiro, E. S. (1992). Use of Gickling's model of curriculum-based assessment to improve reading in elementary age students. School Psychology Review, 21, 168-176.
21. Skinner, C. H., Fletcher, P. A., & Wildmon, M. (1996). Improving assignment preference through interspersal: Problem completion rates versus easy problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 427-437.
22. Skinner, C. H., Hall-Johnson, K., Skinner, A. L., Cates, G. L., Weber, J., & Johns, G. (1999). Enhancing perceptions of mathematics assignments by increasing relative rates of problem completion through the interspersal technique. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 43-59.
23. Skinner, C. H., Robinson, S. L., Johns, G., Logan, P., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Applying Herrnstein's matching law to influence students' choice to complete difficult academic tasks. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 5-17.
24. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., McCurdy, M., & Sims, S. (1999). Improving secondary students' perceptions of the "dreaded mathematics word problem assignment" by giving them more word problems. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 319-325.
25. Wildmon, M. E., Skinner, C. H., & McDade, A. (1998). Interspersing additional brief easy problems to increase assignment preference on mathematics reading problems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 337-346.