Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-1
Using Moderator Analysis to Identify the First-Grade Children Who Benefit More and Less From a Reading Comprehension Program: A Step Toward Aptitude-by-Treatment Interaction
Because of the importance of teaching reading comprehension to struggling young readers and the infrequency with which it has been implemented and evaluated, we designed a comprehensive first-grade reading comprehension program. We conducted a component analysis of the program’s decoding/fluency and reading comprehension dimensions (DF and COMP), creating DF and DF+COMP treatments to parse the value of COMP. Students (N = 125) were randomly assigned to the two active treatments and controls. Treatment children were tutored three times per week for 21 weeks in 45-min sessions. Children in DF and DF+COMP together performed more strongly than controls on word reading and comprehension. However, pretreatment word reading appeared to moderate these results such that children with weaker beginning word reading across the treatments outperformed similarly low-performing controls to a significantly greater extent than treatment children with stronger beginning word reading outperformed comparable controls. DF+COMP children did not perform better than DF children. Study limitations and implications for research and practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguinisH. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141–1158. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90026-8
2.
ArterJ.A.JenkinsJ.R. (1979). Differential diagnosis—prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555. doi:10.3102/00346543049004517
3.
BrownR.PressleyM.Van MeterP.SchuderT. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.18
4.
CaseL. P.SpeeceD. L.SilvermanR. D.SchatschneiderC.MontanaroE.RitcheyK. D. (2014). Immediate and long-term effects of Tier 2 reading instruction for first grade students with a high probability of reading failure. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 28–53. doi:10.1080/19345747.2013.786771
5.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.TomblinJ. B.ZhangX. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142–1157. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/093)
6.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.KatchL. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0804_1
8.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. doi:10.1037/h0043943
9.
CronbachL. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127. doi:10.1037/h0076829
10.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5
11.
EllemanA. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 761–781.
12.
EllemanA. M.LindoE. J.MorphyP.ComptonD.L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44. doi:10.1080/19345740802539200
13.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1997a). The case for early reading interventions. In BlachmanB. A. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.PengP.KearnsD. M.GilbertK. . . . MillerA. C. (2018). A randomized control trial of explicit instruction with and without cognitive training to strengthen the reading comprehension of at-risk first-grade children. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.SimmonsD.C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174
16.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ThompsonA.Al OtaibaS.YenL.YangN. J. . . . O’ ConnorR. E. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs: A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.251
17.
FuchsD.KearnsD.PattonS.EllemanA.FuchsL.SteacyL.TosteJ. (2016). Nashville Early Reading Project. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
18.
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. doi:10.1177/001440290407100101
19.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA. . . . ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 499–514. doi:10.1037/a0034341
20.
GerstenR.Newman-GoncharR. A.HaymondK. S.DiminoJ. (2017). What is the evidence base to support reading interventions for improving student outcomes in Grades 1–3? (REL 2017–271). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
21.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
22.
KeenanJ.BetjemanR.OlsonR. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. doi:10.1080/10888430802132279
23.
KendeouP.BroekP.HelderA.KarlssonJ. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 10–16. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12025
24.
KirkS. A.McCarthyJ. J.KirkW. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
25.
LangL. I.TorgesenJ.VogelW.ChanteC.LefskyE.PetscherY. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149–175. doi:10.1080/19345740802641535
26.
MannL. (1979). On the trail of process: A historical perspective on cognitive processes and their training. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
27.
McGeeA.JohnsonH. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Educational Psychology, 23, 49–59. doi:10.1080/01443410303220
28.
McNeishD. M.StapletonL. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Education Psychology Review, 28, 295–314. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x
29.
MillerB.McCardleP.HernandezR. (2010). Advances and remaining challenges in adult literacy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 101–107. doi:10.1177/0022219409359341
30.
MorrowL. M.RandM. K.YoungJ. (1997). Differences between social and literacy behaviors of first, second, and third graders in social cooperative literacy settings. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
31.
PerfettiC. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
32.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2001). The lexical bases of comprehension skill. In GorfienD. S. (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10459-004
33.
RaphaelT. E. (1984). Teaching learners about sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Journal of Reading, 27, 303–311.
34.
ReschlyD. J.YsseldykeJ. E. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 17–31). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychology.
35.
RobertsC.RobertsS. A. (2005). Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment. Clinical Trials, 2, 152–162. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn076oa
36.
ScottC. M. (2009). A case for the sentence in reading comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 184–191. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0042)
37.
ShanahanT.CallisonK.CarriereC.DukeN. K.PearsonP. D.SchatschneiderC.TorgesenJ. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
38.
SchunemannN.SporerN.BrunsteinJ.C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator-mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 289–305. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002
39.
StramD. O.LeeJ. W. (1994). Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. Biometrics, 50, 1171–1177. doi:10.2307/2533455
40.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
41.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT.GarvanC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579
42.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: How language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 471–497. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.501091
43.
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. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5
44.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psycho-logical Corporation.
45.
WilliamsJ. P.PolliniS.Nubla-KungA. M.SnyderA. E.GarciaA.OrdynansJ. G.AtkinsJ. G. (2014). An intervention to improve comprehension of cause/effect through expository text structure instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 1–17.
46.
WilliamsJ. P.StaffordK. B.LauerK. D.HallK. M.PolliniS. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 1–20.
47.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
48.
ZenoS. M.IvensS. H.MillardR. T.DuvvuriR. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science.
49.
ZumetaR. O.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S. (2012). Using Word Identification Fluency to monitor first-grade reading development. Exceptional Children, 78, 201–220. doi:10.1177/001440291207800204
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
