451121 FOA27310.

1177/1088357612451121Tab
er-Doughty and JasperFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Focus on Autism and Other

Does Latency in Recording Data Make a

Developmental Disabilities
27(3) 168­–176
© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Difference?  Confirming the Accuracy of Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088357612451121
Teachers’ Data http://foa.sagepub.com

Teresa Taber-Doughty, PhD1 and Andrea D. Jasper, PhD2

Abstract
The effects of latency on the accuracy of data recorded by three special education teachers were examined in this study.
Teachers recorded data on the target behaviors of three students with varying disabilities. The accuracy of data recorded
was assessed during three time periods: immediately after the target behavior occurred, at the end of the school day, and
the following school day. A multielement design was used to evaluate data accuracy. Results were interpreted to confirm
that data recorded immediately after a behavior occurred were more accurate and reliable than data documented at the
end of the school day or the start of the following school day. In addition, data recorded by each teacher had a mean
agreement of 97% or above for the time period immediately after a student’s behavior occurred. Furthermore, each teacher
reported that it was beneficial to record data immediately after the target behavior occurred. Implications and future
research directions are provided.

Keywords
data collection, latency, accuracy, reliability, direct measurement

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (2004) requires special education teachers to develop
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) containing
measurable annual goals and short-term objectives, and to
include a statement of how progress toward meeting goals
and objectives is being met, 34 C.F.R. § 300.347(a)(7).
Concomitantly, the No Child Left Behind Act emphasizes
that teachers implement scientifically based practices and
procedures supported by research (Burns & Ysseldyke,
2009). Although educators are under tremendous pressure
to engage in evidence-based practices, it is often ignored
(Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, 2005;
Simonsen et al., 2010). Evidence-based practices are those
that include scientifically based activities or those with data
that support their work (U.S. Department of Education,
2002). The “evidence” in evidence-based practice is of par-
ticular importance to special education teachers as the data-
collection methods used in classrooms have the potential to
sustain the effective instructional practices currently used
or immediately identify ineffective practices. Specifically,
data play a role in the development, implementation, and
promotion of evidence-based practices (McDuffie &
Scruggs, 2008). Teachers gather assessment data to increase
student success and document the effectiveness of an
instructional practice over time, lending support to a par-
ticular method (e.g., evidence; Babkie & Provost, 2004). As
such, special education teachers must become knowledge-
able about their role in the research process and become
active and accurate data collectors (Simonsen et al., 2010).
Making appropriate instructional decisions to enhance
student progress in achieving IEP goals and objectives
requires teachers to regularly document student performance
(Brown, Snell, & Lehr, 2006; Horner, Sugai, & Todd, 2001).
Inaccurate data recording may lead to incorrect conclusions
about student progress and intervention effectiveness
(Parson & Baer, 1986) and affect student achievement
(Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). Although data are neces-
sary to provide evidence for decision making, special edu-
cation teachers frequently report difficulties with this
process (Sandall, Schwartz, & Lacroix, 2004). Researchers
of several studies cited special education teachers’ belief
that data collection is valuable (Cooke, Heward, Test,
Spooner, & Courson, 1991; Ysseldyke, Nania, & Thurlow,
1985). Yet, teachers report infrequently or rarely engaging
in data collection or using data to change their instruction
1
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
2
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, USA
Corresponding Author:
Teresa Taber-Doughty, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue
University, 100 N University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA
Email: tabert@purdue.edu

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Taber-Doughty and Jasper 169
(Farlow & Snell, 1989; Rathgen, 2006; Walton, 1985). Special
education teachers identified numerous data-collection barri-
ers, including a lack of knowledge and skills for how and
when to collect data, time management for collecting data,
analyzing data, and appropriately using the data for instruc-
tional decision making (Sandall et al., 2004; Ysseldyke et al.,
1985). In fact, rather than relying on data, teachers reported
making educational decisions based on their own judg-
ments, memories, individual observations, and the influ-
ence of conversations and collaborations with fellow
teachers (Boardman et al., 2005). Although individual judg-
ments and observations are important factors in the data-
collection process, accurate recording increases the
likelihood that instructional decisions will ultimately result
in improved instruction and student progress.
One recommended practice for accurately measuring stu-
dent learning requires direct observation of student perfor-
mance (Cooke et al., 1991; Farlow & Snell 1989). To make
accurate judgments about instructional effectiveness and
improve student performance, teachers should frequently
record and regularly analyze those data (Cooke et al., 1991;
Farlow & Snell 1989; Horner et al., 2001). Unfortunately,
many teachers find direct observation and data collection to
be too time-consuming and a task that interferes with their
teaching responsibilities (Jones, 2009; Munger, Snell, &
Loyd, 1988). Measuring student behaviors only once pro-
vides limited information, whereas measuring performance
repeatedly and over time allows teachers to more accurately
determine the effectiveness of instruction and student learn-
ing (Gable, Arllen, Evans, & Whinnery, 1997; Horner et al.,
2001). Thus, data reliability can be directly influenced by
measurement frequency, suggesting that it may be necessary
to record student behaviors more often (Fuchs, 1986; White
& Haring, 1980). In addition, teacher’s judgments about stu-
dent performance may be less accurate than those based on
direct observation (Lewis-Palmer, Sugai, & Larson, 1999;
White & Liberty, 1976). Data might be inaccurate if they are
recorded at some point after a student completes the target
behavior when there is no permanent product (Lewis-Palmer
et al, 1999; Logan, 1991). However, when permanent prod-
ucts are unavailable, not only do the frequencies with which
data are recorded become noteworthy but so does the latency
between student behavior and data collection.
Only one study could be found in which latency as a fac-
tor in data accuracy was examined when recording data.
Logan (1991) examined whether data recorded by four spe-
cial education teachers at three different time periods (e.g.,
immediately after a 10-min instructional sequence, after a
30-min instructional session involving two additional stu-
dents, and at the end of the day) after their students with
profound disabilities completed targeted behaviors would
be accurate. Results were interpreted to conclude that data
were most accurate when recorded following the 10- and
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
30-min instructional sessions. When teachers waited until
the end of the day to record student performance levels,
accuracy decreased. Logan concluded that teachers did not
need to engage in simultaneous data collection while teach-
ing. Rather, data were most accurate when the latency
between behavioral occurrence and recording was brief.
Logan noted that although the performance levels of stu-
dents with profound intellectual disabilities may not fluctu-
ate much across sessions or days, future investigators should
examine the data-collection accuracy of teachers who serve
students with moderate and severe disabilities, whose behav-
iors may change more frequently.
We sought to replicate Logan’s examination of latency
effects on the accuracy of data recorded by special education
teachers. However, unlike the Logan study where teachers
worked individually with students who experienced pro-
found intellectual disabilities, we focused on students with
mild and moderate intellectual and behavioral disabilities
who were engaged in individual and group classroom activi-
ties throughout the school day. In the current study, three
special education teachers recorded data on target students
in each of their classes. For each student, three target behav-
iors were recorded at different times (e.g., immediately after
the behavior occurred, at the end of the school day, at the
start of the following school day) to confirm the impact of
latency on data accuracy. Students were engaged in typical
classroom activities, including individual, small group, and
one-on-one learning sessions with peers and adults.
Method
Participants
Three special education teachers, Suzie, Neelu, and Karol
(pseudonyms), participated in this study. Each was selected
to participate based on their (a) holding a current teaching
license, (b) employment as a special education teacher, and
(c) willingness to participate. Each held at least a bachelor’s
degree in special education and taught secondary students
(ages 12–19 years) with varying disabilities. All reported
that they were actively engaged in regularly recording data
based on student instructional and behavioral objectives.
Table 1 presents a demographic summary for each teacher
participant.
Suzie. Suzie taught students identified with communica-
tion and intense learning needs (e.g., students who experi-
enced moderate/severe autism, students who were nonverbal,
students who were considered legally blind). Her students
ranged in age from 12 to 19 years. She taught at the school
for approximately 2 years. Her previous experience included
teaching first and fourth grades. Prior to her current posi-
tion, she served as a media specialist in several public
schools for 10 years.
170 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(3)
Table 1. Teacher and Student Demographic Information.
Teacher/ Number of
student Degree years teaching Classroom type
Teacher
 Suzie BA/Ed minor: 12 Communication/
reading moderate and severe
 Neelu BA/K-12 SE, LD,  8 Academic instruction
Mild/Mod
 Karol MS/K-12 SE  2 Functional life skills
Student
 Jaxon
 Pete
 Daniel
Note: BA/Ed = Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education; BA/SE = Bachelor of Arts in Special Education; MS/SE = Master of Science in Special Education;
LD = emphasis in learning disabilities; Mild/Mod = emphasis in mild/moderate disabilities; DS = Down’s syndrome; MoID = moderate intellectual disabil-
ity; ODD = oppositional defiant disorder; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BPD = bipolar disorder; MID = mild intellectual disability.
Neelu. Neelu taught academic skills (e.g., language arts/
English, math, science) to students, ages 12 to 15 years,
identified with oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disor-
der, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and mild intel-
lectual disabilities. She had worked in the present school for
more than 4 years prior to the study. Her previous teaching
experience included working as a substitute teacher, para-
professional, and elementary schoolteacher in a self-
contained classroom for students with emotional disorders
for more than 3 years.
Karol. Karol taught functional life skills to students, ages
13 to 19 years, identified with mild and moderate intellec-
tual disabilities. She had worked in the present school for
2 years prior to the study. Preceding her current position,
Karol had no prior teaching experience.
Three students who attended each teacher’s class also
participated in this study. Jaxon, Pete, and Daniel (pseud-
onyms) were selected as target students from whom teachers
would collect learning and behavioral data during this inves-
tigation based on (a) being a student in one of the participat-
ing teacher’s classrooms, (b) parental consent, and (c) their
willingness to participate based on informed verbal assent.
Jaxon was a student in Suzie’s class, Pete attended Neelu’s
class, and Daniel was a student in Karol’s class. Table 1 pro-
vides demographic information on each of these students.
Settings
Baseline and intervention sessions took place within each
teacher’s classroom in a residential school located in a sub-
urban midwestern community. The residential school spe-
cialized in providing year-round treatment, and educational
and vocational services to school-age students (6–21 years)
who were dually diagnosed with developmental and emo-
tional disabilities. Each teacher’s classroom consisted of no
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Number of Type of data
students collection Disability Age (years)
 8 Individual student  
(1×–2×/week)
13 Individual student  
(1×–2×/week)
12 Individual student  
(1×–2×/week)
DS, MoID 19
ODD, ADHD 14
BPD, MID 13
more than 15 students and contained a desk or table for each
student. Each classroom contained two windows, a closet,
and a computer. In addition, Suzie’s classroom had a water
table allowing students to play with water toys or other
materials (e.g., rice, beans, sand) for tactile stimulation. Two
paraeducators were present in each classroom setting.
Dependent and Independent Variables
The dependent variable in this investigation was the accu-
racy at which each teacher recorded student performance
data. The independent variables addressed latency.
Specifically, three independent variables were randomly
alternated that determined the time at which each teacher
recorded student learning and behavioral data: immediately
after the behavior was performed, at the end of the school
day, or the morning of the following day. Teachers identified
three specific behaviors for their students and randomly
assigned the time period in which a particular behavior
would be targeted for data collection. Information regarding
when data were collected for each target behavior per stu-
dent is presented in Table 2.
Experimental Design
A multielement design was used to illustrate the accuracy of
teacher data for each student’s target behaviors. This design
was selected as it allowed for an immediate comparison
between the three data-collection time periods to determine
if one resulted in greater accuracy than another (Barlow &
Hersen, 1984; Kazdin, 1982). Independent variables were
alternated and counterbalanced to control for carryover
effects. Each teacher was asked to collect data during each
of the three designated time periods (e.g., immediately after
a behavior occurred, at the end of the school day, or the
Taber-Doughty and Jasper 171

Table 2. Target Behaviors and Data Recording Time Periods.

Data recording time period

Student Immediately End of day Following day

Jaxon Refusing to follow directions after Not following directions during calendar Number of requests (asking for food,
an initial directive activities people, books, etc.)
Pete Out of bounds (leaving classroom Instigating peers (talk to or touch in ways Not following directions
without permission) that irritated them)
Daniel Not following directions Inappropriate boundaries (touched peers or Negative behaviors (e.g., yelling at peers/
staff without their permission) staff, hitting walls or desk, pushing over
or kicking chairs)

start of the following school day after behavior occurred).
To determine the order of data collection, each time period
was represented by a number. For example, the time period
“immediately after a behavior occurred” was assigned the
numbers 0, 3, and 6. Likewise, the time period “at the end
of a school day” was assigned the numbers 1, 4, and 7, and
the time period “at the start of the following day” was
assigned the numbers 2, 5, and 8.
Each teacher was asked to select a number between 0 and
8. If they chose 0, 3, or 6, they would begin collecting data
immediately after the behavior occurred. If they chose 1, 4, or
7, they would begin collecting data at the end of the day.
Furthermore, if they chose 2, 5, or 8, they would begin collect-
ing data at the start of the following day. Suzie chose the num-
ber 0 and started data collection immediately after the behavior
occurred. Neelu chose the number 7 and started data collec-
tion at the end of the school day. Karol chose the number 8
and started data collection at the start of the following day.
Data Collection
Event recording was used to document the number of times
students exhibited target behaviors. Teachers recorded data
at a designated time period (e.g., immediately after a
behavior occurred, at the end of the school day, or the start
of the following school day after behavior occurred).
Investigators collected data only during the instructional
periods. During analysis, the numbers recorded by teachers
and investigators were compared. Event recording was
selected as it was the most direct and accurate way to
reflect the number of times student’s target behaviors
occurred (Alberto & Troutman, 2012).
Procedures
Preintervention. During this phase, investigators reviewed
data-collection procedures with teachers. Teachers were
video recorded as they taught their target students during
the same instructional period each day for a minimum of
5 days. They were asked to engage in activities as they nor-
mally would within their classroom (e.g., one-on-one,
individual group work, or small-group activities) that
included recording data on their student’s behaviors. The
teachers chose the instructional (e.g., observational) period
because, it was assumed, they would have insight regarding
when the student would exhibit possible target behaviors.
Specifically, the teachers had knowledge of what periods of
the day a student exhibited a behavior in an excessive man-
ner (e.g., after lunch because the student was tired, during
transitions). Each teacher’s observational period was
approximately 45 min in length (range = 35–45 min; µ =
41.87 min). Teachers identified three specific target behav-
iors per student, operationally defined, and recorded data on
those behaviors.
Intervention. This phase lasted 15 to 25 days for each
teacher. Each teacher collected data on three regularly
occurring target behaviors for their student (see Table 2).
Teachers collected data on behaviors of target students
while other students were in the classroom. Teachers were
engaged in one-on-one activities, such as spelling, with tar-
get students, which allowed target students to work alone
with the teacher. In addition, teachers engaged in individual
group work or small-group activities, such as math, Eng-
lish, and physical education, with other classmates. Thus,
target students were required to interact with their class-
mates during data recording.
Due to the nature of special education classrooms, the
conditions varied under which teachers recorded data in
their classrooms. For example, Suzie observed her students
during the early morning (9:00–9:35 a.m.) and often began
the instructional period with small-group instruction,
whereas paraeducators worked individually with two stu-
dents. After 15 min, the entire class came back together and
Suzie engaged students in direct instruction. Neelu observed
her students in the early afternoon (12:45–1:15 p.m.) and
frequently engaged them in direct instruction for a majority
of the period, reserving the last 15 min for individual work.
Paraeducators were available as students needed them (i.e.,
when they raised their hand for help). Karol observed her
students during the latter part of the morning (10:00–10:45
a.m.) and engaged them in small-group activities for the
duration of the instructional period, whereas paraeducators

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
172 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(3)

Table 3. Description of Classroom Conditions During Teachers’ Instructional Periods.

Condition Suzie Neelu Karol

Instructional period 9:00–9:35 a.m. 12:45–1:15 p.m. 10:00–10:45 a.m.
Type of instruction Small group Direct instruction Small group
Number of students 6 13 6–8a
Activity Calendar time Spelling Mathematics
a
The number of students in her small group varied daily due to the group assignment students received.

led some small groups. Thus, each teacher used varying

classroom formats and conditions while recording data. A
summary of the conditions each teacher used in her class-
room while recording data is presented in Table 3.

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment

Fidelity
To ensure reliability, interobserver agreement (IOA) data
were collected across all of the intervention sessions by two
trained independent observers. Agreement was calculated
using a total percentage agreement method by dividing the
smaller number of events observed by the larger number
and then multiplying this number by 100%. IOA averaged
95% and ranged from 90% to 100% for Suzie (Teacher 1).
Agreement was 100% during each IOA session for Neelu
(Teacher 2). Finally, IOA averaged 90% for Karol (Teacher
3), with a range of 85% to 95%.
Treatment fidelity measures confirmed the teachers’ cor-
rect use of the data collection across each time period. To
ensure the validity of intervention, a task analysis was used
to record the percentage of steps (e.g., observe the behavior
and mark the instance on the data-collection sheet) each
teacher correctly followed when collecting data on the tar-
get behaviors for each student (see the appendix for task
analysis). Treatment fidelity measures were conducted dur-
ing 30% of intervention sessions. For Suzie (Teacher 1),
treatment fidelity was 97% (range = 94%–100%), and
100% for Neelu (Teacher 2) and Karol (Teacher 3).
Results
Figures 1 to 3 illustrate the accuracy of each teacher’s data
when recorded immediately after a behavior occurred, at
the end of the school day, and at the beginning of the fol-
lowing school day. Visual analysis revealed that data
recorded immediately after a student behavior occurred
were more accurate than those recorded at the end of the
day or the following day for all three teachers. In addition,
all teachers had more agreement per session with the
researchers during the time period immediately after the
target behavior occurred than any other time period.
Suzie. Suzie’s data were more accurate and reliable when
collected immediately after the target behavior occurred.
Figure 1. Percentage of agreement per session per time period
in which Suzie gathered data on student’s target behaviors.
Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of agreement per session
per time period on the target behaviors of her student. The
mean agreement on the number of target behaviors exhib-
ited by the student was 98% during the time period immedi-
ately after a behavior occurred. The mean agreement for the
time period at the end of the school day was 74%, whereas
it was 75% for the time period at the start of the following
day. The mean difference between immediately after the
behavior occurred and at the end of the day was 24%,
whereas the mean difference was 23% between immedi-
ately after the behavior and the next day. The mean differ-
ence between end of the day and data recorded the next day
was 1%. These differences along with visual analysis sug-
gest that the time period immediately after a student’s
behavior occurred proved to be more accurate and reliable
when compared with the other time periods.
Neelu. Neelu’s data were more accurate and reliable
when collected immediately after the target behavior
occurred. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of agreement
per session per time period on the target behaviors of her
student. The mean agreement for the number of target
behaviors exhibited by the student was 100% during the
time period immediately after a behavior occurred. The
mean agreement for the time period at the end of the school

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Taber-Doughty and Jasper 173
Figure 2. Percentage of agreement per session per time period
in which Neelu gathered data on student’s target behaviors.
day was 71%, whereas it was 14% at the start of the follow-
ing day. The difference between the means between imme-
diately after the behavior occurred and the end of the school
day was 29%, whereas the mean difference was 86%
between immediately after the behavior occurred and the
following day. The mean difference between the end of the
day and data recorded the next day was 57%. These differ-
ences along with visual analysis suggest that data recorded
immediately after a student’s behavior occurred proved to
be more accurate and reliable when compared with the
other time periods.
Karol. Karol’s data were more accurate and reliable when
collected immediately after the target behavior occurred.
Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of agreement per session
per time period on the target behaviors of her student. The
mean agreement for the number of target behaviors exhib-
ited was 97% immediately after a behavior occurred. The
mean agreement at the end of the school day was 37%,
whereas it was 43% the following day. The difference
between the means between immediately after the behavior
occurred and the end of the school day was 60%, whereas
the mean difference was 54% between immediately after
the behavior occurred and the following day. The mean dif-
ference between the end of the day and data recorded the
next day was 6%. These differences suggest that the time
period immediately after a student’s behavior occurred pro-
vided more accurate and reliable data when compared with
the other time periods.
Social Validity
When asked whether they were surprised at the results of
the study, each teacher stated that they were not. Teachers
reported that it was beneficial and made more sense to
record data immediately after a behavior occurred, rather
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
Figure 3. Percentage of agreement per session per time period in
which Karol gathered data on student’s target behaviors.
than waiting until the end of the day. They stated it was
more beneficial to them to record data immediately after
the behavior occurred because it was “fresh” in their minds
and more accurate. However, one teacher stated that
recording data immediately after a behavior occurred was
not always the most feasible method. She stated she would
“often have to stop in the middle of her lesson to write
down the data she was recording.”
All three teachers expressed experiencing difficulties
remembering what data to record while dealing with other
issues in their classrooms (e.g., dealing with student behav-
iors, teaching lessons). They reported it was difficult to
remember the data they were supposed to record at the end
of the day and from the previous day. They found it less
beneficial to record data at the start of the following day
because they forgot what data to record and often guessed at
the number of times they thought their student exhibited a
target behavior the previous day.
Each teacher reported that she would attempt to record
data immediately after students’ behavior occurred in the
future. All three noted that collecting data immediately
after a behavior occurred made it easier for them to docu-
ment students’ progress on their IEP goals and objectives.
However, one teacher reported that recording data every
time she observed an instance of a student’s target behavior
was “time-consuming.” Furthermore, she noted that it was
“somewhat overwhelming.” However, all teachers reported
that their participation was a valuable experience.
Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to examine latency
effects on the accuracy of data recorded by three teachers
on the target behaviors of the three students. Data on each
student’s target behaviors were recorded at three different
174 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(3)
time periods: immediately after the target behavior occurred,
at the end of the school day, and at the start of the following
school day. Results are interpreted to indicate that the data
recorded immediately after a student’s target behavior
occurred were more accurate than any other time period for
all teachers. Likewise, each teacher had a higher percentage
of agreement with the researcher for data recorded during
the time period immediately after the student’s target
behavior occurred than at any other time period.
In addition, data recorded by each teacher had a mean
agreement of 97% or more for the time period immediately
after a student’s behavior occurred. However, each teacher
had a mean agreement between 37% and 74% for the time
period at the end of the school day after a student’s behavior
occurred and between 14% and 75% for the time period at the
start of the following day after a student’s behavior occurred.
There are several factors possibly influencing the accuracy of
the data recorded by teachers during the time periods at the
end of the school day and at the start of the following day.
First, we focused on a population of students with mild dis-
abilities in this study as opposed to Logan (1991) who
included students with profound disabilities. Students with
mild disabilities engage in more behaviors making accuracy
more challenging if teachers wait to record data. This may be
because teachers are being attentive to the various behaviors
that their students are displaying, affecting the accuracy of
the data recorded on the specific behavior being targeted.
Second, teachers in this study were required to teach in their
classrooms as they normally would. This included working
on activities with small groups of students, engaging students
in individual group work, or working individually with stu-
dents. Teachers’ participation in these activities may have
affected the accuracy of the data they recorded, particularly
because their attention was shared between the activities with
students and the behavior being targeted. In addition, the
length and number of activities teachers were engaged in
prior to data recording may have affected data accuracy.
Clearly, immediacy in data recording was unmatched.
The findings indicated that each teacher experienced more
success when they recorded data immediately after stu-
dents’ target behavior occurred. These data were more accu-
rate and reliable during this time period because teachers
did not have to retain the information for an extended period
and were required to record the information immediately
after it was observed. Furthermore, this allowed teachers to
provide an accurate representation of the number of times
each student exhibited a target behavior. This same strategy
could also be used when collecting data on a student’s aca-
demic progress, a student’s IEP goals and objectives, or the
effectiveness of instructional practices.
Although results are interpreted to support the need for
educators to record data immediately after the behavior
occurs, there was some variability in the teacher’s IOA results.
Neelu demonstrated a higher percentage of agreement for the
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
time period at the end of the day than the time period at the
start of the following day. This may be explained by the time
of day at which she observed her student’s behavior (12:45–
1:15 p.m.). Thus, she experienced the shortest time lapse
between behavior observation and the documentation of
observed behavior at the end of the day. It is unknown why
Suzie and Karol obtained a higher percentage of agreement
for the time period at the start of the following day. One would
expect data collected at the end of the day to be more accurate
than data recorded at the start of the following day. However,
this investigation did not produce such results. In the future,
researchers should consider further examining the cause of
the variability between those two time periods.
Our results can be used to support the assumption that data
recorded immediately after a student’s behavior occurs will
be more accurate than data collected later in the school day or
the following school day. Furthermore, it supports research-
ers suggesting direct measurement as an effective means of
evaluating instructional effectiveness and increasing student
performance (Cooke et al., 1991; Gable et al., 1997; Horner
et al., 2001; Munger et al., 1988). Replications of the present
investigation are needed to confirm these results.
Limitations, Implications,
and Future Research
Teachers in the present study engaged in classroom activities
and recorded data on their students as they typically would
on a given day. However, they also focused data recording on
their target student’s predetermined behavior that occurred
during the specific instructional period. For example, Suzie
taught and recorded performance data for various students on
calendar-related activities during the morning instruction
period. Concomitantly, she also observed her target student’s
behaviors (e.g., his number of requests, not following direc-
tions during calendar, not following instructions after initial
directive). Depending on the intervention schedule, Suzie
would record data on one of these behaviors immediately, at
the end of the day or at the beginning of the next day. Although
paraeducators were available to assist with data recording on
calendar-related skills, Suzie also recorded these data while
leading the instruction. Thus, one limitation possibly affecting
results may be attributed to the teacher’s roles. The number
and type of instructional activities in which the teacher was
engaged may have contributed to the accuracy or inaccuracy
of data recorded on each student’s target behavior. As such,
future investigators might examine how variations of these
variables may influence the accuracy of teacher data.
One limitation affecting generalizability may be attrib-
uted to the number and diversity of participants included in
the current investigation. We involved only three special
education teachers who taught in the same school, and
taught students with mild and moderate exceptional learn-
ing needs. To increase generalizability, future investigators
Taber-Doughty and Jasper 175

may consider the data-collection accuracy of teachers serv- Appendix

ing students who represent different disability populations
as well as general education teachers who teach students Task Analysis Data Sheet
with and without disabilities in inclusive settings.
Student Code:
Another limitation affecting the generalizability of results
was the use of event recording as a means to document stu-
Teacher Name:
dents’ behavior. The findings from this study are generalizable
only to the event recording method of collecting data. To Time Period (Circle one):
increase generalizability, researchers may want to consider
conducting this investigation using alternative data recording   A.  Immediately after the behavior occurred
methods such as duration or latency recording. In the future,
investigators may seek to examine the use of the event record-   B.  At the end of the school day
ing method to increase or accelerate students’ target behaviors.
A final limitation was the use of the video camera to record   C.  At the start of the following school day
student behavior. Although the video camera was placed in
each student’s classroom 2 weeks prior to data collection to Please observe each teacher during the time period circled
reduce novelty effects, the presence of the video camera above. Place a check next to each step the teacher completes
potentially could have affected the students’ performance correctly. Then, circle the number of steps the teacher
causing an increase or decrease in their behavior. For instance, completed correctly below.
Neelu’s (Teacher 2) student Pete was observed instigating his
_____ 1.  Choose the correct data recording sheet for targeted
peers excessively on many occasions prior to the implementa-
student
tion of the intervention; however, these behaviors remained
low throughout the study. This result could be attributed to the _____ 2.  O
 bserve students target behavior during the
presence of the video camera in the classroom. instructional period
The evidence provided from our investigation, in addi-
tion to the dissertation investigation conducted by Logan _____ 3.  P
 lace a tally mark on the data recording sheet for each
(1991), suggests that collecting data immediately after a instance of target behavior observed
behavior occurred, or soon after, was more effective because
data were likely to be more accurate and more reliable. 3/3 Steps completed correctly = 100%
These accurate and reliable data will provide educators with
a better understanding of student progress and achievement. 2/3 Steps completed correctly = 67%
For educators, a primary concern should be student aca-
demic progress. To ensure students are gaining the skills and 1/3 Steps completed correctly = 33%
knowledge necessary to help them achieve academically,
accurate documentation of their progress (e.g., data col-
lected immediately after the behavior/performance occurs)
is necessary. This will ensure that educators are able to base Declaration of Conflicting Interests
instructional decision on accurate information. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
Researchers should consider examining the use of data respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
recording with different time periods (e.g., 10 min after a article.
behavior occurs, 30 min after a behavior occurs, and 1 hr
after a behavior occurs) to further indicate, precisely, how Funding
much time can lapse between student performance and The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
teachers data collection before the data are no longer valid. ship, and/or publication of this article.
Researchers also should consider evaluating the strength of
References
the data teachers record and how it influences their instruc-
tional decisions; specifically, whether instructional deci- Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2012). Applied behavior analy-
sions are being made with substantiated evidence (e.g., sis for teachers (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
accurate and reliable data). In the future, researchers also Hall.
should consider examining the impact of teachers’ data- Babkie, A. M., & Provost, M. C. (2004). Teachers as researchers.
driven instructional decisions on student achievement as Intervention in School and Clinic, 39, 260–268.
well as examining the accuracy of students recording their Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental
own performance data. designs (2nd ed.). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
176 Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 27(3)
Boardman, A. G., Arguelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., &
Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teachers views of research-
based practices. Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180.
Brown, F., Snell, M. E., & Lehr, D. (2006). Meaningful assess-
ment. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students
with severe disabilities (6th ed.) (pp. 173-206). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of
evidence-based instructional practices in special education.
Journal of Special Education, 43, 3–11.
Cooke, N., Heward, W. L., Test, D. W., Spooner, F., & Courson, F. H.
(1991). Student performance data in the classroom: Measure-
ment and evaluation of student progress. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 14, 155–161.
Farlow, L. J., & Snell, M. E. (1989). Teacher use of student per-
formance data to make instructional decisions: Practices in
programs for students with moderate to profound disabilities.
Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handi-
caps, 14, 13–22.
Fuchs, L. S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handi-
capped pupils: Review of current practice and research. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 7, 5–12.
Gable, R. A., Arllen, N. L., Evans, W. H., & Whinnery, K. M. (1997).
Strategies for evaluating collaborative mainstream instruction:
“Let the data be our guide.” Preventing School Failure: Alterna-
tive Education for Children and Youth, 41, 153–158.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Todd, A. W. (2001). “Data” need not
be a four-letter word: Using data to improve schoolwide disci-
pline. Beyond Behavior, 11, 20–26.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20
U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
Jones, M. L. (2009). A study of novice special educators’ view
of evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 32, 101–120.
Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single case research designs: Methods for
clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Lewis-Palmer, T., Sugai, G., & Larson, S. (1999). Using data to
guide decisions about program implementation and effective-
ness. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 47–53.
Logan, K. (1991). An analysis of the accuracy of student performance
data recorded by teachers under three conditions (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Downloaded from foa.sagepub.com at CALIF STATE POLY UNIV LIBRARY on March 10, 2015
McDuffie, K. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2008). The contributions of
qualitative research to discussions of evidence-based practice in
special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 91–97.
Munger, G., Snell, M. E., & Loyd, B. H. (1988). How often do
you need to collect student performance data? A study of the
effects of frequency of probe data collection and graph char-
acteristics on teachers’ visual inference. Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED310560)
Parson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1986). The graphic analysis of
data. In A. Poling & R. W. Fuqua (Eds.), Research methods
in applied behavior analysis (pp. 157–184). New York, NY:
Plenum.
Rathgen, E. (2006). In the voice of teachers: The promise and
challenge of participating in classroom-based research for
teachers’ professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 22, 580–591.
Sandall, S. R., Schwartz, I. S., & Lacroix, B. (2004). Intervention-
ists’ perspectives about data collection in integrated early child-
hood classrooms. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 161–174.
Simonsen, B., Shaw, S. F., Faggella-Luby, M., Sugai, G.,
Coyne, M. D., Rhein, B., . . . Alfano, M. (2010). A schoolwide
model for service delivery: Redefining special educators as
interventionists. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 17–23.
U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Evidence-based education.
Paper presented at the Student Achievement and School Account-
ability Conference, October, 2002. Retrieved from http:// www
.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/eb/edlite-slide003.html
Walton, W. T. (1985). Educators’ responses to methods of collect-
ing, storing, and analyzing behavioral data. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 7, 50–55.
White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
White, O. R., & Liberty, K. A. (1976). Behavioral assessment and
precise educational measurement. In N. G. Haring & R. L.
Schiefelbusch (Eds.), Teaching special children (pp. 31–71).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teach-
ing: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis
with exceptional students. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Nania, P. A., & Thurlow, M. L. (1985). Instruc-
tional decision-making practices of teachers of preschool
handicapped children: Research Report No. 3. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED269952)