Educators have widely used cognitive strategy instruction to address reading comprehension deficits evidenced by students with learning disabilities. However, no one has yet conducted a review of the quality of this literature. This review applies the quality indicators advocated by Gersten et al. (2005) and Horner et al. (2005) to evaluate the quality of published group and single-subject design studies that support cognitive strategy instruction. The authors analyzed 18 group studies and 7 single-subject design studies and calculated average weighted effect sizes and percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND). Only group design studies met the criteria for cognitive strategy instruction as an evidence-based practice. The authors also discuss implications for future research and practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
References marked with an asterisk denote studies included in the review.
2.
AlexanderD. F. (1985). The effect of study skill training on learning disabled students' retelling of expository material. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 263–267.
3.
BakerS. K.ChardD. J.Ketterlin-GellerL. R.ApichatabutraC.DoablerC. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303–320.
4.
BakkenJ. P.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1997). Reading comprehension of expository science material and students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies. Journal of Special Education, 31, 300–324.
5.
BermanR. A. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79–120.
BoyleJ. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98.
8.
BoyleJ. R. (2000). The effects of a Venn diagram strategy on the literal, inferential, and relational comprehension of students with mild disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10 (1), 5–13.
9.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.SpoonerF.MimsP. J.BakerJ. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.
10.
ChardD. J.Ketterlin-GellerL. R.BakerS. K.DoablerC.ApichatabutraC. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75, 263–284.
11.
ClarkF. L.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. M. (1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 145–149.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
CookB. G.TankersleyM.LandrumT. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365–383.
14.
CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
15.
DarchC.Kame'enuiE. J. (1987). Teaching LD students critical reading skills: A systematic replication. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 82–91.
16.
EllisE. S.GravesA. W. (1990). Teaching students with learning disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10 (2), 2–10.
17.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE.”Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138.
18.
FoxE. (2009). The role of reader characteristics in processing and learning from informational text. Review of Educational Research, 79, 197–261.
19.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
20.
GajriaM.SalviaJ. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 508–516.
21.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 148–164.
22.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
23.
GrahamS. (Ed.). (2009). Evidence-based practices for reading, math, writing, and behavior [Special issue]. Exceptional Children, 75 (3).
24.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–334). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 90–100.
26.
GravesA. W.LevinJ. R. (1989). Comparison of monitoring and mnemonic text-processing strategies in learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 232–236.
27.
GreenwoodC. R.AbbottM. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276–289.
28.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
29.
JitendraA. K.ColeC. L.HoppesM. K.WilsonB. (1998). Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 379–396.
30.
JitendraA. K.HoppesM. K.XinY. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139.
31.
KarlsenB.MaddenR.GardnerE. F. (1984). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Psychological Corporation: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
32.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293.
33.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.ArguellesM. E.HughesM. T.LeftwichS. A. (2004). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302.
34.
LabercaneG.BattleJ. (1987). Cognitive processing strategies, self-esteem, and reading comprehension of learning disabled students. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 11, 167–185.
35.
LaneK. L.LalbergJ. R.ShepcaroJ. C. (2009). An examination of the evidence base for function-based interventions for students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders attending middle and high schools. Exceptional Children, 75, 321–342.
36.
LedererJ. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–106.
37.
LiddleW. (1977). Reading for concepts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
38.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1201.
MaloneL. D.MastropieriM. A. (1992). Reading comprehension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 270–279.
41.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.HamiltonS. L.WolfeS.WhedonC.CanevaroA. (1996). Promoting thinking skills of students with learning disabilities: Effects on recall and comprehensions of expository prose. Exceptionality, 6 (1), 1–11.
42.
McCardleP.ScarboroughH. S.CattsH. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 230–239.
43.
McCormickS.CooperJ. O. (1991). Can SQ3R facilitate secondary learning disabled students' literal comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. Reading Psychology, 12, 239–271.
44.
MirandaA.VillaescusaM. I.Vidal-AbarcaE. (1997). Is attribution retraining necessary? Use of self-regulation procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 503–512.
45.
MontagueM.DietzS. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285–302.
46.
NelsonJ. R.SmithD. J.DoddJ. M. (1992). The effects of teaching a summary skills strategy to students identified as learning disabled on their comprehension of science text. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 228–243.
47.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425.
48.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
49.
RosenshineB. (1995). Advances in research on instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 262–268.
50.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D.AlleyG. R.WarnerM. M.DentonP. H. (1982). Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 295–304.
51.
SencibaughJ. M. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44, 6–22.
52.
SimmondsE. P. M. (1992). The effects of teacher training and implementation of two methods for improving the comprehension skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 194–198.
53.
SmithP. L.FriendM. (1986). Training learning disabled adolescents in a strategy for using text structure to aid recall of instructional prose. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 38–44.
54.
SpargoE.WillistonG. R.BrowningL. (1980). Timed readings: Book One. Providence, RI: Jamestown.
55.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.
56.
SwansonH. L.KozleskiE.SteginkP. (1987). Disabled readers' processing of prose: Do any processes change because of intervention?Psychology in the Schools, 24, 378–384.
57.
SwansonP. N.De La PazS. (1998). Teaching effective comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 209–218.
58.
WeaverC. A.KintschW. (1991/1996). Expository text. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230–245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
WilliamsJ. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. Journal of Special Education, 39, 6–18.
61.
WongB. Y. L.JonesW. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–240.
62.
WongB. Y. L.WongR.PerryN.SawatskyD. (1986). The efficacy of a self-questioning summarization strategy for use by underachievers and learning disabled adolescents in social studies. Learning Disabilities Focus, 2 (2), 20–35.
63.
WortmanP. M.BryantF. B. (1995). School desegregation and black achievement: An integrative review. Sociological Methods and Research, 13, 289–324.
64.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–222.
