Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volume 42 Number 3
May/June 2009 215-229

Retrieval of Simple Addition Facts

© 2009 Hammill Institute on
Disabilities
10.1177/0022219408331041
http://journaloflearningdisabilities
Complexities Involved in Addressing a Commonly .sagepub.com
hosted at
Identified Mathematical Learning Difficulty http://online.sagepub.com

Sarah Hopkins
Helen Egeberg
University of Western Australia

There exists a substantial number of studies that have identified a subset of low-achieving mathematics students who do not
develop a reliance on retrieval for simple addition but who continue to use a counting strategy to solve these problems. There
are few studies, however, that have focused on how retrieval of simple addition facts may be improved. This study employed
a combined methodological approach to examine the effect extended practice had on increasing a reliance on retrieval for
simple addition. An intervention aimed at improving the efficiency of extended practice was also piloted. Although most
students improved with extended practice, the extent of improvement was not practical for all students and the intervention
did not generally improve the effectiveness of extended practice. The findings emphasize the critical importance of continu-
ing such research and draw attention to the complexities involved in addressing retrieval difficulties for simple addition.

Keywords:  retrieval; mathematical learning difficulties; simple addition; basic facts

I t is well documented in the research literature that

there exists a subgroup of low-achieving students in
mathematics who exhibit retrieval difficulties and con-
tinue to rely on counting to perform simple (single-digit)
addition (Geary, 2004; Geary, Hamson, & Hoard, 2000;
Hopkins & Lawson, 2006a; Jordan & Montani, 1997;
Ostad, 1997; Ostad & Sorensen, 2007) but intervention
research in this area is sorely lacking. The aims of this
study were to (a) examine the effect that extended prac-
tice had on increasing a reliance on retrieval for simple
addition (encompassing direct retrieval and decomposi-
tion strategies) and (b) pilot test an intervention designed
to improve the effectiveness of extended practice on
increasing a reliance on retrieval, for students in a main-
stream secondary school setting.
Learning to perform simple addition problems by
directly retrieving the answer (i.e., just knowing the
answer) is a complex developmental process (Hopkins &
Lawson, 2002). Before direct retrieval dominates
performance, young children gain important conceptual
knowledge of numbers and construct increasingly more
efficient counting strategies. The longsum- and sum-
counting strategies are sometimes collectively referred to
as count-all strategies and involve one or two rounds of
counting starting at 1. For example, if the problem were
3 + 5, the child using a sum strategy would count all
components at least once, as in “1, 2, 3 _ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.”
The count-from-first and min-counting strategies are
sometimes collectively referred to as count-on strategies.
If the problem were 3 + 5, the child using a count-from-
first strategy would start at 3 and count on 5, as in “3 _ 4,
5, 6, 7, 8”; the child using the min-counting strategy
would start at 5 and count on 3, as in “5 _ 6, 7, 8.”
By early or middle primary school (usually around
Years 2 and 3), practice at successfully applying the min-
counting strategy leads to an increased reliance on
retrieval among normally achieving children, and simple
addition is no longer a focus of instruction in schools
(Hopkins & Lawson, 2002). Siegler’s strategy choice
model (Shrager & Siegler, 1998; Siegler & Jenkins,
1989; Siegler & Shrager, 1984) provides an explanation
of how direct retrieval begins to dominate simple
addition performance: practice using a back up strategy
(any strategy other than direct retrieval) for each problem
leads to a frequency distribution of answers (correct and
incorrect) that is associated with the problem in memory;
correct practice leads to a peaked distribution of
Authors’ Note: We gratefully acknowledge the support of the
Spencer Foundation for partly funding this research (# 200700173)
and Professor Michael Lawson for his helpful comments on an earlier
version of the article.

215
216   Journal of Learning Disabilities
associations around the correct answer; the more peaked
the distribution, the greater the probability the answer
will be directly retrieved. Thus, correct practice is
thought to be the main pedagogical requirement for
students to move on from counting to direct retrieval.
Even among adults, simple addition problems are not
all solved using direct retrieval; generally they are solved
using a combination of direct retrieval and decomposition
strategies (Geary & Wiley, 1991; LeFevre, Sadesky, &
Bisanz, 1996). Decomposition strategies involve applying
“a known” fact to derive the answer to a problem [e.g.,
9 + 7 = (10 + 7) – 1 or 3 + 4 = (3 + 3) + 1]. Although in
certain circumstances, adults may sometimes count on
two or more counts, they more than likely can retrieve
the answer and this means that they have at their disposal
a body of known facts that can be used to derive other
facts. Take, for example, the problem 5 + 7: The answer
could be derived using the approach (5 + 5) + 2, but to
successfully use this decomposition strategy, two facts
must be known, 5 + 5 and 5 + 2.
A considerable body of research has identified a
group of students who do not develop a reliance on direct
retrieval and decomposition strategies but have to rely on
counting for simple addition at an age well beyond their
peers (Geary et al., 2000; Gray, 1991; Jordan & Montani,
1997; Ostad, 1997; Ostad & Sorensen, 2007). There is
some debate in the research literature as to whether these
students are delayed in developing simple addition skill,
that is, they use immature counting strategies for an
extended period of time but will eventually develop
retrieval strategies (Torbeyns, Verschaffel, & Ghesquiere,
2004), or whether they have a processing deficit that
does not allow them to develop and/or access retrieval
links (Geary, 2004; Jordan & Montani, 1997). Independent
of the debate in the literature, teachers are expected to
improve procedural fluency of basic skills along with
conceptual understanding for students with difficulties
learning mathematics (Evans, 2007).
While the number of studies that have examined
typical and atypical development of simple addition skill
is extensive (see Hopkins & Lawson, 2002, 2006b, for
reviews of this research), the number of intervention
studies that specifically address retrieval difficulties
associated with simple addition is very limited. To
substantiate this point, a review of related intervention
studies is provided in some detail below.
A Review of Intervention Research
Kroesbergen and Van Luit (2003) conducted a meta-
analysis of intervention studies, designed for children
with special needs to help them acquire certain knowledge
and skills associated with arithmetic (including preparatory
understandings, skills performing the four operations,
and problem-solving strategies). Of the 58 interventions
included in the meta-analysis (published between 1985
and 2000) and of the 29 studies that focused on skills with
the operation of addition and presupposed simple addition
skill, only 5 intervention studies actually focused on
simple addition skill (i.e., the addition of two single-digit
numbers). These five studies are mentioned below along
with the most recent intervention research relevant to the
retrieval of basic facts.
A number of interventions have focused on helping
students move on from using inefficient counting strategies
to using more efficient counting strategies for simple
addition, for example, Tournaki (2003). It is important to
note, however, that these studies did not focus on or assess
if the interventions increased the frequency of retrieval.
Similarly, Schopman and Van Luit (1996) evaluated the
effects of an intervention to move children on from using
elaborate to more efficient counting strategies, and Miller
and Mercer (1993) evaluated the effects of an instructional
sequence to help children move on from solving simple
addition problems using concrete representations to
solving abstract sums. In neither study did the authors
focus on, or assess, the frequency of retrieval.
A number of interventions have focused on helping
students learn an algorithm to perform addition problems
involving two-digit numbers. For example, Simon and
Hanrahan (2004) taught three students with learning
disabilities (around 10 years old) to use a dot-notation
method known as Touch Math. The children in this study
all used a combination of count-all and count-on strategies
when solving simple addition problems and relied on
concrete referents such as fingers or tallies. Although
this system offered a method for solving double-digit
addition problems using a standard written algorithm, it
was not designed to improve the retrieval of stored facts
for simple addition. In fact, these researchers assumed
that because students were encouraged to repeat their
answers to problems aloud when using the Touch Math
method, simple addition facts would gradually be
retrieved; however, this assertion was not tested.
Several interventions intended to increase accuracy
and automatic responding to basic number facts have
involved memorization; however, memorization techni­
ques, including the Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC)
procedure (Skinner, Turco, Beatty, & Rasavage, 1989)
and the Taped Problems (TP) intervention (McCallum,
Skinner, & Hutchins, 2004), are more commonly
associated with learning multiplication and division facts.

A critical distinction can be made between retrieving
basic addition (and subtraction) facts and retrieving basic
multiplication (and division) facts. Basic multiplication
facts are often taught by memorizing verbal associations
between problems and answers, keeping in mind that good
practice is based on making sure that children are taught
to understand and develop number sense at the same
time as being taught to memorize verbal associations
(e.g., Gersten & Chard, 1999). Few simple addition facts
are taught this way in the classroom. Retrieval links for
simple addition are developed and strengthened via correct
practice using a back up strategy (Shrager & Siegler,
1998; Siegler & Jenkins, 1989; Siegler & Shrager, 1984).
Memorization techniques may, therefore, not be the most
appropriate way to teach simple addition facts to students
with learning difficulties, given that normally achieving
students do not learn and are not taught addition facts in
this way. This argument is further supported by Cohen,
Dehaene, Cohochon, Lehericy, and Naccache (2000), who
found neurological differences in the way multiplication/
division facts and addition/subtraction facts are stored in
memory and suggested that this was due to the different
processes involved in learning these facts.
At least three intervention studies have incorporated
memorization techniques to teach simple addition facts
to students with learning difficulties. A multimodal
program was designed and tested with two students
(Jones, Thornton, & Toohey, 1985) that incorporated
memorization techniques for learning double facts. It is
important to note that the multimodal program still
required students to count on problems with minimum
addends of 1, 2, and 3. This point is highlighted because
more recent research has indicated that learning to
retrieve answers to problems with minimum addends of
1, 2, or 3 is a critical stage in development (Hopkins &
Lawson, 2006a), as these facts become the basis for
decomposition strategies. It is precisely the failure to
move on from counting to retrieval for problems with
smaller addends that appears to be the most distinguishing
characteristic of a retrieval difficulty. Thus, the multimodal
program did not address what might be considered the
crux of this problem.
Two other published studies were found in our review
that focused on students memorizing all the simple
addition facts. Beirne-Smith (1991) evaluated the
effectiveness of a rule-based memorization approach and
a rote-based memorization approach with 20 primary-
aged students with learning disabilities (ages ranging
from 6 to 10 years old). For the rule-based memorization
technique, the tutor displayed simple addition equations
with the same addends and stated the rule, “Each time
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   217  
the addend increases by 1, the sum increases by 1” (e.g.,
“2 + 4 = 6, 2 + 5 = 7, 2 + 6 = 8”). The second method
focused on rote memorization. The tutor would say, “2 +
4 = 6; now you try: 2 + 4 = what?” Beirne-Smith reported
that both memorization interventions improved these
students’ acquisition of simple addition facts. Similarly,
Poncy, Skinner, and Jaspers (2007) found that both the
interventions of CCC and TP were effective in helping
one student (aged 10 years old), who was functioning at
a cognitive level below that of mild mental retardation,
to acquire simple addition facts.
Although both studies report success using memoriza-
tion techniques for teaching simple addition facts, this
approach may not be the most efficient or effective or the
most beneficial in allowing students to develop important
conceptual understandings relating to number. Although
this argument cannot be established from existing research,
it is well documented in the research literature (reviewed
in Hopkins & Lawson, 2002) that memorization is not
the way addition facts are generally learned by typically
achieving children.
While we acknowledge that students with learning
difficulties may well require alternative instruction, it is
our contention that in the context of learning to retrieve
simple addition facts, pedagogical approaches that more
closely replicate typical development should be thoroughly
investigated first. For learning to retrieve simple addition
facts, typical development is based on correct practice at
applying an efficient back up strategy. To date, intervention
studies that have been based on practice have produced
unclear results.
Two of the five studies included in the meta-analysis
by Kroesbergen and Van Luit (2003) examined the
effectiveness of extended practice for developing simple
addition skill among elementary school students (aged
around 8 years old), with and without mild mental
handicaps. Lin, Podell, and Tournaki-Rein (1994) and
Podell, Tournaki-Rein, and Lin (1992) examined the
effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI)
compared with a more traditional paper-and-pencil
method. Their findings were reported to indicate that
both methods for providing opportunities for practice
were effective at increasing accuracy and reducing
reaction times (RTs) for both groups of students but that
students with mild mental handicaps required more
practice than their peers. It is interesting that Podell et al.
(1992) noted that the question of how much more
practice is required for these students could not be
addressed as these students did not meet the speed-
mastery criterion during the study: “Our results indicate
that the difficulty which students who are mildly mentally
218   Journal of Learning Disabilities
handicapped have in developing automaticity relates
specifically to lack of speed, rather than accuracy. What
remains unresolved, however, is the extent to which
further practice will be beneficial” (p. 205). It is also
important to note that although improved accuracy and a
reduction in RTs may be indicators of performance
becoming more automated, they do not necessarily
indicate an increased use of retrieval. It is likely that with
practice, the min-counting strategy becomes more
automated (i.e., performed more quickly) and so a
reduction in RTs by itself may not necessarily indicate an
increase in the use of retrieval. Similarly, a general
reduction in RTs does not necessarily indicate other
types of strategy transformations, such as using count-all
strategies to count-on strategies. To distinguish between
a strategy becoming more automated and a strategy
being transformed, a combined methodological approach
is required, whereby trials are first separated by strategy
use based on self-report and observational data, and RTs
are then analyzed separately for different strategies
(Siegler, 1987). This approach makes it possible to
distinguish between the strategy used and time taken to
execute the strategy.
Goldman, Pellegrino, and Mertz (1988) also examined
the effects of extended practice for a group of students
with learning disabilities in a special education setting
(aged 7 to 13 years old). They used discriminant
analysis to infer strategy use from RT patterns. Their
findings indicated that for two thirds of participants,
practice resulted in a decrease in the mixture of counting
strategies and an increase in the use of direct retrieval.
For one third of participants, variations in RTs were not
consistent with any typical pattern of strategy use and
these students did not appear to benefit from extended
practice. They also uncovered puzzling RT patterns
and cited similar findings from an earlier study by
Svenson and Broquist (1975), who reported that perfor­
mance on simple addition problems with an addend of
2 or 3 produced unsystematic RTs among children with
“poor mathematical talent.” These anomalous RT patterns
could not be investigated further as the researchers did
not employ a combined methodological approach.
A combined methodological approach to study simple
addition performance was first advocated by Siegler (1987)
and has been adopted in studies examining differences in
performance between students with and without learning
differences by Geary and his colleagues (Geary, 1990;
Geary & Brown, 1991; Geary, Brown, & Samaranayake,
1991; Geary et al., 2000). Using a combined methodological
approach, unusual patterns of RTs noted by Goldman et al.
have since become a well-documented feature of simple
addition performance by students with learning difficulties:
Students with learning difficulties produce variations in
RTs to min-counting trials that are not well explained by a
variable representing the number of counts made (Hopkins
& Lawson, 2006b). This unexplained variability has been
attributed to (a) interference in working memory from a
possible bottleneck effect relating to strategy selection, (b)
interference from other sources in working memory, and
(c) losing track of the count (Hopkins & Lawson, 2006b).
A combined methodological approach makes it possible to
distinguish between a back up strategy that becomes more
automated and a strategy transformation where retrieval
replaces the min-counting strategy.
The number of intervention studies found that addressed
retrieval difficulties associated with simple addition in our
review of literature tallied only six: three studies employed
memorization techniques (one study involved a single
student and another involved two students) and three
studies employed extended practice. Five of the six studies
involved students who were 10 years old or younger,
three of the six studies involved students with an intellec­
tual disability, and no study adopted the recommended
combined methodological approach for studying simple
addition performance. In summary, intervention research
relevant to improving retrieval of simple addition facts, in
particular for adolescent students in mainstream education
settings, is sorely lacking.
The Present Study
The present study employed a combined methodological
approach to examine the effect that extended practice had
on increasing a reliance on retrieval for simple addition for
low-performing adolescent students attending mainstream
mathematics classes. In addition to examining the effect of
extended practice, an intervention aimed at reducing RTs
to min-counting trials was also incorpo­rated into the study
design. This decision was based on emerging evidence
that practice using a min-counting strategy will be less
effective for students with slower RTs. Hopkins and
Lawson (2006a) found that a group of adolescent students
still reliant on counting for simple addition were not
completing 2, 3, and 4 counts within the span of working
memory (depicted to be between 2 and 3 seconds). Their
findings supported the argument put forward by Geary
(1993) that problem-answer associations will only
strengthen with practice if both the problem and answer
are activated in working memory at the same time. If
practice does not strengthen retrieval links for problems
with smaller addends, then a body of known facts cannot
later be relied on to derive answers to other problems.

There are different reasons why RTs to min-counting
trials may be slower for some students. These students
may be slower to make each count (Geary et al., 2000), or
they may lose track of the count and have to redo certain
steps in the counting procedure (Hopkins & Lawson,
2006a). Students with mathematical disabilities display
less use of private speech while counting to perform
simple addition (Ostad & Sorensen, 2007) and this factor
could explain why some students are more prone to
losing track of the count. It has also been proposed that
interference from a possible bottleneck effect relating to
strategy selection could produce slower RTs (Hopkins
& Lawson, 2006b). The intervention phase of this study
attempted to decrease RTs to min-counting trials by
requiring students to (a) count as quickly as possible,
(b) count aloud to help avoid losing track of the count,
and (c) always use the min-counting strategy to help
reduce interference from making a strategy selection.
Given that a combined methodological approach requires
intensive trial-by-trial analysis—where the researcher
observes students individually as they complete each
problem and students give a self-report of strategy use after
completing each problem—the research questions were
addressed using a single case study design. Other researchers
have used larger sample sizes to assess the effect of
extended practice on simple addition skill (Goldman et al.,
1988; Lin et al., 1994; Podell et al., 1992); however, these
studies were critiqued earlier in this article for not using a
combined methodological approach. A single case study
approach has been used to assess the effectiveness of
interventions for simple addition skill with students with
intellectual disabilities (Poncy et al., 2007) and learning
difficulties (Jones, Thornton, & Toohey, 1985). A single
case study approach has also been used to examine the
development of simple addition skill among normally
achieving preschool children (Siegler & Jenkins, 1989).
Given that a decomposition strategy relies on directly
retrieving a known fact to then derive the answer, the
phrase a reliance on retrieval is used to denote the use of
either direct retrieval or decomposition strategies. Two
research questions were addressed in this study using a
single case study approach:
Research Question 1: To what extent does extended prac-
tice produce an increased reliance on retrieval for simple
addition among low-performing Year 8 mathematics
students?
Research Question 2: Does an intervention designed to
reduce the time taken to execute a min-counting strategy
improve the efficiency of extended practice on develop-
ing a reliance on retrieval?
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   219  
The term extended practice denotes providing more con-
centrated and frequent practice than would typically be
encountered. In this study, extended practice encom-
passed 15 minutes practice each day for 20 consecutive
school days, an amount comparable to that reported in
other intervention studies (Goldman et al., 1988; Lin
et al., 1994; Podell et al., 1992). It was hypothesized that
practice alone would lead to some improvement in the
frequency of retrieval (based on Siegler’s distributions of
association model) but that the intervention would
increase the effectiveness of practice based on findings
indicating that a slower counting speed impedes the
effectiveness that practice has on developing a reliance
on retrieval (Hopkins & Lawson, 2006a).
Method
Participants
Eight students identified as having a learning difficulty
were selected to participate. It should be noted that in
Western Australia, and more generally in Australia,
students are not identified as having a learning disability
based on an IQ-achievement discrepancy (Klassen,
Neufeld, & Munro, 2005; van Kraayenoord & Elkins,
2004). The term learning difficulty rather than learning
disability is used in the Australian context: A learning
difficulty is generally identified using professional
judgments based on indicators of low achievement; the
term learning disability (or specific learning difficulty) is
generally used to denote a more severe (sometimes
unexplained) type of learning difficulty (van Kraayenoord
& Elkins, 2004). In Western Australia at least, there is
considerable resistance to IQ testing except for identifying
an intellectual disability (usually among young children),
to allow parents a choice of special or mainstream
education services.
The eight participants were in their 1st year of
secondary school (Year 8), in the same senior high
school located in an area of lower socioeconomic status
in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. These
students attended a regular mathematics class but were
considered to have a mathematical learning difficulty
based on low scores attained in Year 7 on a statewide
standardized test of numeracy achievement, known as
the numeracy component of the Western Australian
Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (WALNA). Scores
for this assessment (referred to as WAMSES) range from
0 to 800. A numeracy benchmark score of 402 in Year 7
approximates the 20th percentile and reflects the
220   Journal of Learning Disabilities

Table 1
Participant Details
Age in Mathematics WMTB-C Component Score
Years/ Achievement SPM
Name Gender Months WAMSES (z score) Raw Score CE PL VS

Abbey female 13/3 380 (–1.136) 46   91 132   75

Amelia female   14/11 330 (–1.753) 28 102 120   82
Caleb male 13/0 405 (–0.827) 44 109 106   94
Henry male   14/10 389 (–1.025) 32   73 110   84
Samuel male 14/8 341 (–1.617) 13   56 110   74
Sue female 14/3 397 (–0.926) 33   61   97   71
Tiana female 13/0 352 (–1.481) 37   78 119   84
Zara female 13/3 389 (–1.025) 43   93 111   88

Note: A cell shaded gray indicates a score below the 10th percentile of population scores recorded for that measure. All mathematics achieve-
ment scores for study participants were around or below the population benchmark score of 402 (around or below the 20th percentile). z scores
for the Western Australian Literacy and Numeracy Assessment test of Mathematics Achievement were calculated using 2007 population figures
(M = 472, SD = 81). The median score for the SPM, standardized for similar aged children in Australia, was reported to be between 45 and 47
(de Lemos, 1989, cited in Raven, 2000a), with a score around 36 representing the 10th percentile. WMTB-C = Working Memory Test Battery
for Children; WAMSES = Western Australia Monitoring Standards in Education scores; SPM = Standard Progressive Matrices Test; CE =
Central Executive; PL = Phonological Loop; VS = Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad.

minimum standard of performance that a student must
achieve to progress. For ease of interpretation, WAMSE
scores were converted to z scores.
Consent was given from the school (then the parents
and students) to administer the Standard Progressive
Matrices Test (SPM; Raven, 2000a). Consent was also
given to administer the Working Memory Test Battery for
Children (WMTB-C; Pickering & Gathercole, 2001).
Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent, and Numtee (2007)
found that different components of working memory
affect different aspects of mathematical performance. It
was deemed important to have measures of working
memory components for each participant to explain
possible inconsistencies in findings.
Participant details are displayed in Table 1. All
participants were nonindigenous Australians attending
mainstream mathematics classes in their 1st year of
secondary school (Year 8) and all had performed around
or below the 20th percentile on a standardized test of
mathematics achievement administered toward the end of
their last year of primary school (Year 7).
Procedure
Permission was obtained from the university’s Human
Research Ethics Committee to commence the study. The
principal of the school was approached and informed of
the study. Permission from the principal was given to
send a letter home inviting Year 8 students to partici­pate
in a study investigating retrieval difficulties in
mathematics. The second author worked at the school
but was not at the time teaching any Year 8 mathematics
classes. Students who gave their signed consent, along
with their parents’ signed consent, and whose records
indicated that they did not exceed the Year 7 numeracy
benchmark, were selected for inclusion in the study.
Students from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
backgrounds were not included in the study. In total,
24 out of 109 Year 8 students in the school had not met
the numeracy benchmark in Year 7. Four students were
not able to participate because they were not attending
school at the time. Out of the possible 20 participants,
3 students and/or their parents did not give consent
and 5 consent forms were not returned. Twelve students
elected to participate in the screening stage of the study.
The aim of the screening stage was to identify students
who had not developed a reliance on retrieval for simple
addition. It involved each of the 12 students meeting
individually with the second author for 20 minutes each
day, for 5 consecutive school days (where possible).
Illness and various individual timetable constraints were
reasons for this not occurring on consecutive days. All
meeting times were arranged for the morning. During the
meeting time, individual students sat next to the researcher
and completed a set of 36 simple addition problems
presented using a specially designed computer program
(described later in the Instruments section). Thirty-six
problems comprised the problem set, which included all
single-digit simple addition problems presented in the
form m + n, where m ≤ n.
The simple addition performance of each student in
the screening stage was analyzed using a combined

methodological approach. The number of problems that
were retrieved or derived was calculated for each of the five
time intervals. Students were screened out if during one or
more time intervals, the number of answers retrieved or
derived exceeded 90% (i.e., more than 33 out of 36
problems). The mean RT taken by each student to solve
problems with a minimum addend of 4 or less using a min-
counting strategy was calculated for each of the 5 days. The
grand mean (across the five time intervals) was then
calculated for each student. Students were screened out if
the grand mean RT to correct min-counting trials for
problems with smaller addends was less than 2.5 seconds.
After the screening phase, eight students were left to
participate in the study. Based on their performance across
5 days, all students were counting to perform more than
20% of simple addition problems and all produced RTs to
min-counting trials that suggested that practice would be
less effective in improving the likelihood of retrieval
(based on findings from Hopkins & Lawson, 2006a).
The study spanned 1 month (20 school days), and on
each school day, a set of 36 simple addition problems was
completed individually by each student. The study design
consisted of one phase (labeled an extended baseline phase)
for two students and three phases for the other six students:
(a) the baseline phase, which comprised 6, 8, or 10 days and
included data collected in the screening stage; (b) the
intervention phase, which comprised 4 days; and (c) the
return to baseline phase, which comprised 10, 8, or 6
days, respectively. As indicated in Table 1, four participants
scored low for the central executive (CE) component of
working memory and four scored within the average range.
Students were allocated to each phase so that the same
amount of practice in the baseline or extended baseline
phase was completed by a student with a low CE score
(referred to as having a central executive difficulty) and a
student with an average CE score.
The intervention phase involved requiring students to
always use the min-counting strategy to perform each
problem in the set and to verbalize each count aloud.
Students were also instructed (and reminded) to count as fast
as they could during the intervention phase. The goal of the
intervention was to decrease overall RTs to min-counting
trials by increasing counting speed and by minimizing RT
variations. During the return to baseline phase, students were
again instructed to use whichever strategy they wanted.
Instruments
Mathematics achievement. The WALNA is adminis-
tered each year to all Year 7 school students in the state.
The numeracy component of the assessment provides
a measure of mathematics achievement for outcomes
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   221  
associated with Space, Measurement, Chance and Data,
Number, Pre-algebra, and Working Mathematically. It
requires approximately 45 minutes for students to com-
plete and includes multiple-choice questions, questions
requiring short answers, and open-ended questions.
Results from testing in Years 3, 5, 7, and 9 are calibrated
onto a scaled measure, based on the Rasch measurement
model, referred to as the Western Australia Monitoring
Standards in Education (WAMSE) scale. Scores (or
WAMSES) range from 0 to 800. The mean numeracy
achievement score for the state’s population of Year 7
students in 2007 was 472 (SD = 81) (M. Thomson, per-
sonal communication, June 3, 2008). A benchmark score
of 402 approximates the 20th percentile.
Intelligence. Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests
(including Standard, Colored, and Advanced Progressive
Matrices tests) are widely used nonverbal tests of general
cognitive ability and intelligence (Marshalek, Lohman, &
Snow, 1983; Raven, 2000b). Items measure the intellec-
tual efficiency with which a person can make comparisons
between figures and develop a logical method of reason-
ing to choose an appropriate missing piece to a pattern.
Working memory. The WMBT-C provides capacity mea-
sures for three working memory components: the
Phonological Loop (comprising three subtests: Digit Recall,
Word List Recall, and Nonword List Recall), the Central
Executive (comprising three subtests: Listening Recall,
Counting Recall, and Backward Digit Recall), and the
Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (comprising two subtests: Block
Recall and Mazes Memory Task). The test battery is
designed to be used with students aged between 5 and 15
years old. Test-retest reliability was calculated for each sub-
test using Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient
and was found to range from 0.42 to 0.83 (Pickering &
Gathercole, 2001). Construct validity was tested and found
to be high for the Central Executive and Phonological Loop
components but lower for the Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
(Gathercole & Pickering, 2000). Based on these tests of
reliability and validity, the WMTB-C has been found suit-
able for measuring different components of working mem-
ory in a variety of studies, including ones examining
mathematical learning and performance (e.g., Fuchs,
Compton, Fuchs, Paulsen, Bryant, & Hamlett, 2005; Geary
et al., 2007; McKenzie, Bull, & Gray, 2003).
Simple addition skill. A computer program designed
specifically for the study was used to assess simple addi-
tion skill. The program presented a problem set, which
included all single-digit addition problems with addends
greater than 1 (2 + 2 to 9 + 9) written in the form “m + n =.”
222   Journal of Learning Disabilities
Problems were presented with the smaller addend first
(e.g., 3 + 5 =) so the experimenter was able to distinguish
between use of a min-counting strategy (where 3 is
counted on) and a less mature count-from-first strategy
(where 5 is counted on). Problems with an addend of 1
were not included due to difficulties in self-reporting
whether a retrieval strategy was used or a count of 1 was
made. In the baseline and return to baseline phases, and
the extended baseline phase, students were instructed that
accuracy was important but that they could use whatever
strategy they wanted to use to perform each problem.
The space bar activated the timer and at the same time
the problem were displayed. A bell was also sounded to
alert the student that a problem was being presented. A
second press of the space bar stopped the timer and
removed the problem from the screen. The researcher
controlled the timer by immediately pressing the space bar
when the student called out the answer. After the student
entered the answer into the computer, a screen appeared
asking the student, “How did you do it?” A number of
options were presented to the student: “I counted,” “I just
knew it,” “I did something else” (indicating decomposition),
and “I don’t know.” If the self-report of strategy use
conflicted with the behavior observed by the researcher,
the researcher probed further until agreement was reached.
The researcher pressed the space bar and the next problem
was presented. During the intervention phase, students
were not prompted to indicate what strategy they had
used. This approach of identifying strategy use for simple
addition using self-report and observation has been
adopted by Geary and his colleagues (Geary, 1990; Geary
& Brown, 1991; Geary et al., 1991; Geary et al., 2000) as
well as others (e.g., Canobi, Reeve, & Pattison, 1998). The
accuracy of using self-reports to identify strategy use for
mental addition has been confirmed by Siegler (1987) and
LeFevre et al. (1996).
Data Analysis
To evaluate the effectiveness of extended practice on
developing a reliance on retrieval, visual inspection
using a multiple baseline design was combined with
regression analyses, to provide an estimate for each
participant of the increase in the number of problems
retrieved or derived each time a problem set was practiced.
To evaluate if the intervention improved the effectiveness
of practice on developing a reliance on retrieval, an
interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) of data for each
participant was conducted. This is a recommended procedure
for single case studies and is based on performing a t test to
assess change after controlling for autocorrelation to reduce
the probability of Type I error (Crosbie, 1993). The ITSA
procedure known as ITSACORR was developed specifically
for use with shorter autocorrelated series, where the number
of data points per phase can be as low as 5, although 10 or
more is recommended (Crosbie, 1993). This procedure
uses least-squares estimates of intercepts and slopes for
each phase (while controlling for autocorrelation) and then
assesses overall change in intercepts or slopes using an
F test supplemented by t tests. The program DMITSA
(Crosbie & Sharply, 1991) was used to perform the
ITSACORR procedure in the present study to help assess
if the intervention improved the effectiveness of practice at
developing a reliance on retrieval for each student.
The use of inferential statistics with a single case study
design is not common but has support in different fields of
psychology (e.g., Busse, Kratochwill, & Elliot, 1995;
Crawford, Garthwaite, & Gray, 2003; Crawford, Garthwaite,
Howell, & Venneri, 2003; Lundervold & Belwood, 2000).
The study of change based on a single case study design is
typically evaluated using visual inspection (whereby a
change is considered significant if it is obvious), but visual
inspection alone can be lenient and unreliable. Inferential
statistics are used in this study to augment visual analyses,
an approach recommended by Busse et al. (1995).
Setting
All phases were carried out in a two-room office
located within the school. Participants were invited to the
office in small groups and were provided with
refreshments while one student worked individually with
the researcher in the meeting room. The computer on
which students worked was situated on a table.
Results
The numbers of problems correctly retrieved (or derived)
during each time interval, for each phase, are displayed in
Figure 1a for students with CE difficulties and Figure 1b for
students without CE difficulties. Time Intervals 1 through 5
occurred (where possible) on consecutive school days and
Time Intervals 6 through 20 also occurred (where possible)
on consecutive school days.
A multiple-baseline-across-participants design for
each student group was chosen to highlight differences
that might be observed in the number of problems
directly retrieved or derived as a result of practice. The
results are clouded somewhat by the peculiar performance
of Henry (Figure 1a) in the extended baseline condition,
where the number of problems he retrieved each day was
highly variable and not influenced by practice, and by
Amelia (Figure 1b), also in the extended baseline
condition, who displayed the most notable improvement
in retrieval with practice among all participants.
 Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   223  

Figure 1a
Number of Problems Retrieved or Derived During Baseline Phase, Intervention Phase, and Return to
Baseline Phase, by Students With Central Executive Difficulties

Note: Only Sue used decomposition strategies in this group so that the numbers represent problems directly retrieved for Tiana, Samuel, and
Henry.

In general, improvements in the number of problems
directly retrieved or derived are visually noticeable in
Figures 1a and 1b. No retrieval data are recorded for
students in the intervention phase as here they were
required to always use the min-counting strategy. A single
regression line was fitted to the data presented in Figures
1a and 1b, for each student, and the number of problems
during the intervention phase was treated as missing data.
The intercept value, regression coefficient, and correlation
coefficient are displayed in Table 2. The results indicate
that for six of the eight participants, the amount of practice
completed did explain a significant amount of variation in
the number of problems retrieved (directly or derived).
The coefficient for the variable Time can be interpreted
to indicate that, for each consecutive school day when a
set of 36 simple addition problems is practiced, the
number of problems retrieved (directly or derived) will
increase by less than one problem for four students (0.2
for Tiana, 0.3 for Zara, 0.4 for Sue, and 0.7 for Samuel)
and between one and two problems for two students (1.1
for Caleb and 1.7 for Amelia).
To assess whether the intervention improved the
effectiveness of practice for developing a reliance on
retrieval, an individual test of significance was applied to the
data displayed in Figures 1a and 1b. This involved fitting a
regression line to the baseline data and another to the return
to baseline data, for each of the six students involved in the
intervention phase, and testing for significant differences in
intercept and slope using the program DMITSA (Crosbie &
Sharply, 1991). The results indicated that among the three
students in the CE difficulties group, the intervention did
not improve the effectiveness of practice for developing a
reliance on retrieval: Sue, F(2, 10) = 1.03, p = .392; Tiana,
F(2, 10) = 2.732, p = .061; Samuel, F(2, 10) = 0.633,
224   Journal of Learning Disabilities

Figure 1b
Number of Problems Retrieved or Derived by Students Without Central Executive Difficulties

Note: Only Abbey used decomposition strategies in this group so that the counts represent problems directly retrieved for Caleb, Zara, and
Amelia. Caleb and Amelia were absent for consecutive days at the end of the school’s term and therefore could not complete all 20 problem
sets during the intervention phase before a 2-week school holiday. These data were treated as missing data in the following analyses.

Table 2 p = .551. For the group without CE difficulties, the

Summary of Regression Analyses for the Variable
(Time) Predicting the Number of Problems
Retrieved or Derived
R F Coeff.
Group Squared Value df Sig. Constant (Time)
Group 1 slope was not significant, T(5) = 0.680, p = .527.
   Sue .524 15.387 15 .002 19.939 0.420
   Tiana .266 5.067 15 .041 4.898 0.212
   Samuel .571 18.623 15 .001 17.766 0.680
   Henry .221 5.116 19 .036 17.325 –0.552
Group 2 for five of the six students involved in the intervention.
   Caleb .832 44.690 10 .000 19.457 1.104
   Abbey .195 2.902 13 .114 29.694 –0.269
   Zara .382 8.637 15 .011 20.953 0.267
   Amelia .782 57.498 17 .000 8.575 1.682
intervention did produce a significant improvement in the
effectiveness of practice for one student, Caleb, F(2, 5) =
7.584, p = .031, but not for the other two students: Abbey,
F(2, 8) = 2.626, p = .133, or Zara, F(2, 10) = 0.898, p =
.438. For Caleb, the difference in intercept approached
significance, T(5) = 2.346, p = .07, but the difference in
These findings indicate that the intervention did not
bring about significant improvements in the effectiveness
at which correct practice leads to a reliance on retrieval
Although there could be a number of reasons that the
intervention did not result in significant changes, the
most obvious to be considered is whether or not RTs to
min-counting trials were reduced during the intervention

Figure 2a
Reaction Times to Correct Min-Counting Trials for Students With Central Executive Difficulties
Note: The R Squared Linear values indicate the percentage of variance in reaction times explained by the min variable (i.e., the number of counts
made).
phase. This question was examined by comparing RTs to
min-counting trials at each of the different phases, for
each student (see Figures 2a and 2b).
By observation, the pattern of RTs displayed in Figures
2a and 2b indicates that the time taken to perform simple
addition problems using the min-counting strategy was
generally shorter during the intervention phase than the
other phases, but this reduction in time was due to less
variation in times (i.e., a smaller range of RTs produced
when making the same number of counts) rather than an
increase in counting speed per se. The finding that RT
variability was reduced during the intervention phase is
supported by an increase in the amount of variance
explained by the number of counts required (see Figures
2a and 2b). The one exception was Caleb. During the
baseline phase, Caleb’s pattern of RTs to min-counting
trials was initially well explained by the number of counts
required (approximately 79% of variance was explained).
Overall, the intervention did not sufficiently decrease RTs
to min-counting trials requiring 2, 3, or 4 counts, as often
these problems were still not being solved within 2.5
seconds (representing the span of working memory)
during the intervention phase.
Applying a single case study design to examine the
effectiveness of extended practice on developing a
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   225  
reliance on retrieval for simple addition among low-
performing, secondary school mathematics students
revealed a complicated pattern of effects. The capacity
of working memory components, including CE function,
did not appear to be salient in explaining different effects
(e.g., Henry did not have a CE difficulty but did not
benefit from extended practice), nor did approximate
measures of IQ (e.g., Samuel scored particularly low on
Raven’s Matrices Test but appeared to benefit from
extended practice). Clearly, further research is needed to
identify the individual factors that are influencing
differential effects of extended practice on retrieval and
simple addition skill.
Discussion
This study examined the effect that extended practice
had on developing a reliance of retrieval for simple
addition, for low-achieving Year 8 mathematics students
attending mainstream schooling, and whether an
intervention designed to decrease the time taken to
perform the min-counting strategy would improve the
effectiveness of extended practice.
The results of the study indicated that, in general,
extended practice did lead to a greater reliance on retrieval
226   Journal of Learning Disabilities
Figure 2b
Reaction Times to Correct Min-Counting Trials for Students Without Central Executive Difficulties
for simple addition but supports the argument that extended
practice alone can be inefficient in improving a reliance on
retrieval (Hopkins & Lawson, 2006a). Given that the
participants were in the 1st year of secondary school, and
simple addition skill is generally thought to be mastered in
the early years of primary school, the time available or
deemed appropriate for practice of simple addition
problems is likely to be restricted. For example,
extrapolating the findings for one student (Tiana) indicates
that she would need to complete a practice set of 36 simple
addition problems every day for more than 6 months
before a complete reliance on retrieval for simple addition
would be achieved. Allocating this amount of time to
practicing simple addition problems appears inappropriate.
The findings are not consistent, however, as extended
practice by itself appeared to be very effective in increasing
a reliance on retrieval for one student (Amelia), even
though she displayed slow and highly variable RTs to min-
counting trials. Complicating the picture was the finding
that extended practice alone was ineffectual at increasing
a reliance on retrieval for another student (Henry).
The results also suggest that the intervention did not
bring about significant improvements in the effective­ness
at which correct practice leads to an increased reliance on
retrieval for simple addition (with the exception of one
student, Caleb). The results cannot be used to support or
refute the argument that an increase in counting speed or
overall decrease in RTs to min-counting trials will
improve the effectiveness of practice because the inter­
vention did not produce sufficient increases in counting
speed or reductions in RTs to test this argument. RTs to
min-counting trials requiring 2, 3, or 4 counts were often
greater than 2.5 seconds (representing the span of
working memory) during the intervention phase.
Until further evidence suggests otherwise, it seems
prudent to persevere with the explanation that counting
speed influences the effectiveness of correct practice;
however, it may not be the only influence. Variability in
RTs to min-counting trials may also influence the
effectiveness of correct practice. Caleb was the only
student who during the baseline phase displayed a RT
pattern to min-counting trials that was well explained by
the number of counts required. Therefore, he could have
benefited more than the other students from practice
during the baseline stage. This would explain why the
intervention was effective for him and not the other
students. Consistency has been identified as an important
condition for developing intratask automaticity (Brown
& Carr, 1989). Further research is needed to clarify what
factors are necessary for correct practice at applying the
min-counting strategy to efficiently lead to a reliance on
retrieval for simple addition.

Limitations and Further Research
The present study comprised a small sample, thereby
limiting the potential to find generalized patterns of
performance. It is our assertion, however, that before further
interven­tions on a larger scale are trialed, further research is
first needed to (a) better identify students who have a
retrieval difficulty with simple addition, (b) pilot test
interventions that are capable of sufficiently reducing the
time taken to solve smaller simple addition problems using
the min-counting strategy, and (c) identify the individual
factors that produce differential effects of extended practice.
The argument that single case study research that allows for
the examination of individual variations should be considered
first and later followed by larger scale research to substantiate
predicted patterns of generalized behavior (often much later
when more is understood about the topic of investigation)
has been propounded by others (e.g., Cronbach, 1975;
Thorngate, 1986). We suggest that intervention studies for
students with retrieval difficulties are particularly well
suited for this type of bottom-up approach to research.
The intervention tested here, to improve the
effective­ness of extended practice on simple addition
skill, could be deemed short as it spanned only four
days; however, it should be kept in mind that there
were really two interventions, an intervention of
extended practice covering 20 days and within that,
an intervention designed to improve the effectiveness
of extended practice covering 4 days—this second
intervention does lend itself to be thought of as a
pilot study. Time was a limitation as 20 consecutive
school days (or 1 month) was deemed appropriate
by the researchers and school involved to spend on
practicing a skill in secondary school that is a focus of
instruction in lower primary school. The methodology
employed, including a multiple baseline design and
individual test of significance requiring at least five
data points for the baseline and return to baseline
phases, restricted the length of the intervention phase.
An improvement in the effectiveness of extended
practice may have been observed if the intervention
phase was longer; this warrants further investigation,
although the practicality of spending more time in the
classroom to improve simple addition skill will need
to be considered.
Conclusions
This study incorporated the use of observation and a
multiple baseline research design as well as statistics to
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   227  
assess the effectiveness of practice alone and practice with
an intervention, to address retrieval difficulties for simple
addition. Most important, it encompassed a combined
methodological approach whereby strategy use was first
identified by self-report and observation, and RTs were
analyzed separately for min-counting trials. This is the first
time, to our knowledge, that a combined approach has
been applied to study the effects of practice on strategy use
and RT variability involved in the simple addition
performance of students with this type of mathematical
learning difficulty. Moreover, it is unique as it involved
students attending regular mathematics classes in a
secondary school setting.
The findings draw attention to the complexities
involved in addressing retrieval difficulties for simple
addition. They highlight the continuing need to evaluate
the effectiveness of interventions among individuals
before trying to address retrieval difficulties on a larger
scale, not only for reasons of efficiency but also to
examine possible factors that account for poorer responses
to intervention, such as processing speed and reaction
time variability. This approach to research in the field is
salient given growing support for defining a learning
disability in terms of intervention responsiveness (e.g.,
Fuchs et al., 2005; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young,
2003).
References
Beirne-Smith, M. (1991). Peer tutoring in arithmetic for children with
learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57, 330–337.
Brown, T. L., & Carr, T. H. (1989). Automaticity in skill acquisition:
Mechanisms for reducing interference in concurrent performance.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 15(4), 686–700.
Busse, R. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1995). Meta-analysis
for single-case consultation outcomes: Applications to research and
practice. Journal of School Psychology, 33(4), 269–285.
Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (1998). The role of
conceptual understanding in children’s addition problem solving.
Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 882–891.
Crawford, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., & Gray, C. D. (2003). Wanted:
Fully operational definitions of dissociations in single-case stud-
ies. Cortex, 39, 357–370.
Crawford, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., Howell, D. C., & Venneri, A. (2003).
Intra-individual measures of association in neuropsychology:
Inferential methods for comparing a single case with a control or
normative sample. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 9, 989–1000.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116–127.
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Cohochon, F., Lehericy, S., & Naccache,
L. (2000). Language and calculation within the parietal lobe: A
228   Journal of Learning Disabilities
c­ ombined cognitive, anatomical and MRI study. Neuropsychologia,
38, 1426–1440.
Crosbie, J. (1993). Interrupted time-series analysis with brief single-
subject data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
61(6), 966–974.
Crosbie, J., & Sharply, C. (1991). DMITSA 2.0: A statistical program
for analyzing data from interrupted time-series. Monash University,
Victoria, Australia.
Evans, D. (2007). Developing mathematical proficiency in the
Australian context: Implications for students with learning diffi-
culties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 420–426.
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D.,
& Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cog-
nitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97(3), 493–513.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003).
Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and impli-
cations for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
Gathercole, A., & Pickering, S. (2000). Assessment of working
memory in six- and seven-year-old children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(2), 377–390.
Geary, D. C. (1990). A componential analysis of early learning deficit
in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(3),
363–383.
Geary, D. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsy-
chological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin,
114(2), 345–362.
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15.
Geary, D. C., & Brown, S. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy
choice and speed of processing differences in gifted, normal, and
mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology,
27(3), 398–406.
Geary, D. C., Brown, S. C., & Samaranayake, V. A. (1991). Cognitive
addition: A short longitudinal study of strategy choice and speed-
of-processing differences in normal and mathematically disabled
children. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 787–797.
Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Numerical and
arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and con-
cept deficits in learning disabled children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 77, 236–263.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee,
C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits
in children with mathematical learning disability. Child
Development, 78(4), 1343–1359.
Geary, D. C., & Wiley, J. G. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy
choice and speed-of-processing differences in young and elderly
adults. Psychology and Ageing, 6(3), 474–483.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithme-
tic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The
Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 18–28.
Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended
practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning dis-
abled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5(3), 223–265.
Gray, E. M. (1991). An analysis of diverging approaches to simple
arithmetic: Preference and its consequences. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 22(6), 551–574.
Hopkins, S. L., & Lawson, M. J. (2002). Explaining the acquisition
of a complex skill: Methodological and theoretical considerations
uncovered in the study of simple addition and the moving-on pro-
cess. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 121–154.
Hopkins, S. L., & Lawson, M. J. (2006a). The effect counting speed
has on developing a reliance on retrieval in basic addition.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 208–227.
Hopkins, S. L., & Lawson, M. J. (2006b). Mathematical learning dif-
ficulties: The influence of working memory limitations on simple
addition performance. In A. V. Mitel (Ed.), Trends in educational
psychology research (pp. 73–105). New York: Nova.
Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., & Toohey, M. A. (1985). A ­multi-option
program for learning basic addition facts: Case studies and an
experimental report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(6),
319–325.
Jordan, N. C., & Montani, T. O. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and
problem solving: A comparison of children with specific and gen-
eral mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,
624–634.
Klassen, R. M., Neufeld, P., & Munro, F. (2005). When IQ is irrele-
vant to the definition of learning disabilities. School Psychology
International, 26, 297–316.
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (2003). Mathematics inter-
ventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-
analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.
LeFevre, J., Sadesky, G. A., & Bisanz, J. (1996). Selection of proce-
dures in mental addition: Reassessing the problem size effect in
adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory
and Cognition, 22(1), 216–230.
Lin, A., Podell, D. M., & Tournaki-Rein, N. (1994). CAI and the
development of automaticity in mathematics skills in students
with and without mild mental handicaps. Computers in the
Schools, 11, 43–58.
Lundervold, D. A., & Belwood, M. F. (2000). The best kept secret in
counseling: single case (n = 1) experimental designs. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 78(1), 92–102.
Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity
continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence.
Intelligence, 7, 107–127.
McCallum, E., Skinner, C. H., & Hutchins, H. (2004). The taped-
problems intervention: Increasing division fact fluency using a
low-tech self-managed time-delay intervention. Journal of Applied
School Psychology, 20(2), 129–147.
McKenzie, B., Bull, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The effects of phonologi-
cal and visual-spatial interference on children’s arithmetical per-
formance. Educational and Child Psychology, 20(3), 93–108.
Miller, S. P., & Mercer, C. D. (1993). Using data to learn concrete-
semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabili-
ties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.
Ostad, S. A. (1997). Developmental differences in addition strategies: A
comparison of mathematically disabled and mathematically normal
children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 345–357.
Ostad, S. A., & Sorensen, P. M. (2007). Private speech and strategy-
use patterns: Bidirectional comparisons of children with and
without mathematical difficulties in a developmental perspective.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 2–14.
Pickering, S., & Gathercole, S. (2001). The Working Memory Test
Battery for Children. United Kingdom: Harcourt Assessment.
Podell, D. M., Tournaki-Rein, N., & Lin, A. (1992). Automatization
of mathematics skills via computer-assisted instruction among
students with mild mental handicaps. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation, 27, 200–206.

Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. J. (2007). Evaluating and
comparing interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy
and fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 27–37.
Raven, J. (2000a). Standard Progressive Matrices. United Kingdom:
OPP Limited.
Raven, J. (2000b). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and
stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48.
Schopman, E.A.M., & Van Luit, J.E.H. (1996). Learning and transfer
of preparatory arithmetic strategies among young children with a
developmental lag. Journal of Cognitive Education, 5, 117–131.
Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children’s
strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science,
9(5), 405–410.
Siegler, R. S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: An
example from children’s addition. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 116, 250–264.
Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strat-
egies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and
subtraction: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian
(Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Simon, R., & Hanrahan, J. (2004). An evaluation of the Touch Math
method for teaching addition to students with learning disabilities
in mathematics. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
19(2), 191–209.
Skinner, C. H., Turco, T. L., Beatty, K. L., & Rasavage, C. (1989).
Cover, copy, and compare: An intervention for increasing
multiplication performance. School Psychology Review, 18,
212–220.
Hopkins, Egeberg / Retrieval of Addition Facts   229  
Svenson, O., & Broquist, S. (1975). Strategies for solving simple
addition problems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16,
143–151.
Thorngate, W. (1986). The production, detection, and explanation of
behavioral patterns. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Individual subject and
scientific psychology (pp. 71–96). New York: Plenum Press.
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquiere, P. (2004). Strategy
development in children with mathematical disabilities: Insights
from the choice/no-choice method and the chronological age/
ability/level-match design. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37,
119–131.
Tournaki, T. (2003). The differential effect of teaching addition
through strategy instruction versus drill and practice to students
with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 36, 449–458.
van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Elkins, J. (2004). Learning difficulties in
numeracy in Australia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1),
32–41
Sarah Hopkins, PhD, lectures in the Graduate School of
Education at the University of Western Australia. She taught
secondary school mathematics for many years before becoming
an academic. Her research interests include the effective teach-
ing of mathematics and mathematical learning difficulties.
Helen Egeberg is a research student in the Graduate School of
Education at the University of Western Australia. She has
extensive experience teaching secondary school mathematics
in government schools and now works in private practice as an
educational consultant.