There are several possible causes when students underperform or otherwise fail to meet academic standards. Gilbert (1978) proposed six variables that may be involved in underperformance: information, instruments, incentives, knowledge, capacity, and motives. Of these domains, information, incentives, knowledge, and motivation may be of particular interest in educational settings. Informational deficits (and deficits in the related knowledge domain) involve individuals not knowing how to perform the skill, not knowing what performance standards are in place, or not receiving feedback about their behavior relative to the expectations. According to Gilbert, failures of incentives involve weak or poorly scheduled reinforcers for performing well or competing reinforcers for poor performance. When students underperform, the question of whether the deficits are due to a lack of instruction or to mismanaged contingencies is important to consider; does the performer know how to do what they are being asked to do? Is there sufficient reinforcement available for performing the expected task? When these questions are answered correctly, an intervention aimed at improving performance may be developed. Several studies have examined assessments and interventions based on differences between skill and performance deficits (e.g., Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, & Eckert, 1999; Duhon et al., 2004; Eckert et al., 2000; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Noell et al., 1998). The efficacy of these interventions has been demonstrated across different populations (including children with autism, developmental disabilities, and typical development), responses (including math and reading at a variety of levels), and settings (including homes, schools, and clinics). Interventions typically involve some combination of instructional strategies, goal setting, performance feedback, and reinforcement, in isolation or combination. For example, Duhon et al. (2004) examined the utility of a brief assessment (similar to the one described by Northup et al., 1991) for predicting performance in extended interventions targeting math and writing skills. Brief assessments were conducted to establish baseline levels of performance. Instructions were provided but no explicit reinforcement contingency was in place. Following the assessment, the experimenters conducted out-of-class sessions to examine effects of goal setting and rewards. Two participants performed more accurately during the goal/reward sessions than during the initial assessment, suggesting a performance deficit, while the other 2 participants showed no change between instructional and goal/reward sessions, suggesting a skill deficit. During the extended intervention component of the study, the experimenters employed an alternating-treatment design (e.g., Barlow & Hersen, 1984) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of performance-or skill-based treatments. The performance-based treatment involved stating a goal and allowing access to a small reward if the goal was met. The skill-based treatment involved pre-session practice or the use of an instructional aid. Students with hypothesized performance deficits improved in the performance-based treatment and students with hypothesized skills deficits improved in the skill-based treatment. Like Duhon et al. (2004), most research assessing reinforcement-or skill-deficits has used combinations of treatment components. For example, Duhon et al. incorporated both goals and reinforcement in their performance-based intervention. Eckert, Adroin, Daisey, and Scarola (2000) assessed various combinations of six components commonly used in performance-or skill-based interventions for reading: previewing the reading passage, practicing the passage, performance feedback (on the amount of time only or amount of time plus number of errors), goal setting (with goals set by the student or the experimenter), performance charting, and reinforcement. …