Monitoring Children with Reading Disabilities' Response to Phonics Intervention: Are There Differences between Intervention Aligned and General Skill Progress Monitoring Assessments?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2006
Monitoring Children with Reading Disabilities' Response to Phonics Intervention: Are There Differences between Intervention Aligned and General Skill Progress Monitoring Assessments?
This study investigated whether 2 different progress monitoring assessments differentially predicted growth in reading skills associated with systematic phonics instruction. Oral reading fluency (ORF) was compared with an intervention aligned word list (IAWL) as predictors of growth in untimed and timed decoding and word identification and text reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Results from 40 children with reading disabilities, Grades 2–5, indicated that the IAWL accounted for unique variance in change on measures of decoding and word identification, whereas the ORF measure accounted for unique variance on passage reading fluency gains. Evaluation of the IAWL psychometric properties revealed adequate reliability and construct validity; however, additional analysis indicated that the hierarchical coding scheme used to determine each word's rank difficulty ordering was not as effective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BockR. D. (1997). A brief history of item response theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16 (4), 21–33.
2.
ComptonD. L.AppletonA. C.HospM. K. (2004). Exploring the relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor decoders. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 176–184.
3.
ComptonD. L.OlinghouseN. G.EllemanA.ViningJ.AppletonA. C.VailJ. (2005). Putting transfer back on trial: Modeling individual differences in the transfer of decoding skill gains to other aspects of reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 55–69.
4.
DenoS. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36 (2), 5–10.
5.
DenoS. L. (1997). Whether thou goest … Perspectives on progress monitoring. In LloydJ. W.KameenuiE. J.ChardD. (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 77–99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
7.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
8.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
9.
ElliotS. N.FuchsL. S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternative to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224–233.
10.
EmbretsonS. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8, 341–349.
11.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
EnglemannS.BrunerE. C. (1988). Reading Mastery I/II Fast Cycle: Teacher's guide. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
14.
FuchsL. S. (1989). Evaluation solutions: Monitoring progress and revising intervention plans. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 153–181). New York: Guilford Press.
15.
FuchsL. S. (1995, May). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the National Research Council Workshop on alternative to IQ Testing, Washington, DC.
16.
FuchsL. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986a). Curriculum-based assessment of progress toward long- and short-term goals. Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–82.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986b). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28, 659–671.
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurements to enhance instructional program. Remedial and Special Education, 10 (2), 43–52.
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
24.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Education Achievement.
25.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame'enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
26.
KnutsonN.ShinnM. R. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual underpinnings and integration into problem-solving assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 371–393.
27.
LiangK. Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika7, 13–22.
28.
LovettM. W.LacerenzaL.BordenS. L. (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476.
29.
LovettM. W.LacerenzaL.BordenS. L.FrijtersJ. C.SteinbachK. A.De PalmaM. (2000). Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 263–283.
30.
MarstonD.FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1985). Measuring pupil progress: A comparison of standardized tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11 (2), 77–90.
31.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods second edition. London: Sage.
32.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
33.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.TillyW. D.CollinsV. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459–479.
34.
Statistical Analysis System Institute. Statistical Analysis Software (2001). [Computer software]. Cary, NC: Author.
35.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1997). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
36.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
37.
WagnerR. K.TorgesonJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
38.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
