This study investigated a Tier 2 intervention in the context of a response-to-intervention (RTI) model for 123 fourth-grade students identified as having a high probability of reading failure. A randomized control trial was used to evaluate the effects of a 24-session multicomponent supplemental intervention targeting fluency and expository comprehension of science texts. Intervention students performed significantly higher on science knowledge and comprehension strategy knowledge and use, but not on word reading, fluency, or other measures of reading comprehension. Moderators of intervention effects were also examined; children at higher risk in the intervention condition appeared to benefit more in comparison to lower probability children in intervention and compared to higher probability children in the control condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593592.
2.
BeckI. L.McKeownM. G.KucanL. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
BeckI. L.PerfettiC. A.McKeownM. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506.
4.
CaseL. P.SpeeceD. L.MolloyD. E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557–582.
5.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.AdlofS. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH.KamhiA. (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101.
7.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003.
8.
CunninghamP. M. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: Helping students build meaning, spell, and read “big” words. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 189–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057356980140204.
9.
DilibertoJ. A.BeattieJ. R.FlowersC. P.AlgozzineR. F. (2009). Effects of teaching syllable skills instruction on reading achievement in struggling middle school readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 14–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226253.
10.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998.
11.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading “posse.”Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1510519.
12.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP.SimmonsD. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1163346.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
18.
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, 279–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279.
19.
GravesA. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehension training on finding main ideas. Learning Disability Research, 1, 90–100.
20.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.BarbosaP.PerencevichK. C.TaboadaA.DavisM. H.TonksS. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403.
23.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.PerencevichK. C. (2004). Scaffolding for motivation and engagement in reading. In GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA.PerencevichK. C. (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 55–86). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3.
25.
JenkinsJ. R.HeliotisJ. D.SteinM. L.HaynesM. C. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54, 54–59.
LittellR. C.MillikenG. A.StroupW. W.WolfingerR. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS.
28.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K.MariaK.DreyerL. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, Fourth edition, Forms S and T. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
29.
MasonL. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus reciprocal questions: Effects on expository reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.283.
30.
MatherN.HammillD. D.AllenE. A.RobertsR. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency: Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
31.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.BlakeR. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 218–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1.
32.
MinskoffE. (2005). Teaching reading to struggling learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
33.
MirandaA.VillaescusaM. I.Vidal-AbarcaE. (1997). Is attribution retaining necessary? Use of self-regulated procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 513–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000506.
34.
MorganP. L.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.CordrayD. S.FuchsL. S. (2008). Does early reading failure decrease children's reading motivation?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 387–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219408321112.
35.
NagyW.BerningerV.AbbottR. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134.
36.
NagyW. E.ScottJ. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In KamilM.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Institute on Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard.
38.
O'ConnorR.WhiteA.SwansonH. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 74, 31–46.
39.
O'ConnorR. E.BellK.HartyK.LarkinL.SackorS.ZigmondN. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.3.474.
40.
O'ConnorR. E.HartyK. R.FulmerD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380060901.
41.
O'SullivanR. (2003). Protecting sea turtles. Washington, DC: National Geographic.
42.
PinnellG. S.PikulskiJ. J.WixsonK. K.CampbellJ. R.GoughP. B.BeattyA. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
43.
RaphaelT. E.AuK. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. Reading Teacher, 59, 206–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.3.1.
44.
RappD. N.van den BroekP.McMasterK. L.KendeouP.EspinC. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289–312.
45.
RitcheyK. D.SpeeceD. L.SilvermanR. D.MontanaroE. (n.d.). Assessment of strategy knowledge and use for information text (ASKIT): Sea turtles (Form A). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
46.
RosenshineB.MeisterC. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1170585.
47.
SimmonsD.HairrellA.EdmondsM.VaughnS.LarsenR.WillsonV.ByrnsG. (2010). A comparison of multiple-strategy methods: Effects on fourth-grade students' general and content-specific reading comprehension and vocabulary development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3, 121–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345741003596890.
48.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 322–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986023004323.
SpeeceD. L.RitcheyK. D.SilvermanR. D.SchatschneiderC.WalkerC.AndrusikK. (2010). Identifying children in middle childhood who are at risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39, 258–276. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070313/.
51.
StageS. A.AbbottR. D.JenkinsJ. R.BerningerV. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360010401.
52.
TherrienW. J.HughesC. (2008). Comparison of repeated reading and question generation on students' reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6 (1), 1–16.
53.
TherrienW. J.WickstromK.JonesK. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21 (2), 89–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x.
54.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency: Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
55.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
56.
WanzekJ.WexlerJ.VaughnS.CiulloS. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5.
57.
WoodcockR.McGrewK.MatherN.SchrankF. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement, Third edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
58.
ZenoS. M.IvensS. H.MillardR. T.DuvvuriR. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
