A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Reading Comprehension Interventions on the Reading Comprehension Outcomes of Struggling Readers in Third Through 12th Grades
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2022
A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Reading Comprehension Interventions on the Reading Comprehension Outcomes of Struggling Readers in Third Through 12th Grades
Informed by theories of reading comprehension and prior reviews of reading comprehension intervention, this meta-analysis uniquely contributes to the literature because it describes the relative effects of various approaches to comprehension intervention for struggling readers in Grades 3 through 12. Findings from 64 studies demonstrate significant positive effects of reading comprehension intervention on comprehension outcomes (g = .59, p < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.47, 0.74], τ2 = .31). A metaregression model indicated significantly higher effects associated with researcher-developed measures, background knowledge instruction, and strategy instruction, and significantly lower effects associated with instructional enhancements. Grade level, metacognitive approaches, and study quality did not moderate effects. Findings support the use of background knowledge instruction and strategy instruction to support comprehension of struggling readers in upper elementary and beyond.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbryT.HullemanC. S.Rimm-KaufmanS. E. (2015). Using indices of fidelity to intervention core components to identify program active ingredients. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014557009
2.
AhmedY.FrancisD. J.YorkM.FletcherJ. M.BarnesM.KuleszP. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
3.
AustinC. R.WanzekJ.ScammaccaN. K.VaughnS.GeselS. A.DoneganR. E.EngelmannM. L. (2019). The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918796164
4.
BerkeleyS.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995—2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988
5.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Alliance for Excellent Education.
6.
BiemillerA.SlonimN. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498
7.
BoonR. T.PaalM.HintzA. M.Cornelius-FreyreM. (2015). A review of story mapping instruction for secondary students with LD. Learning Disabilities–A Contemporary Journal, 13(2), 117–140.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.HoganT. P.WeismerS. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders?Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/096)
10.
CattsH. W.KamhiA. G. (2017). Prologue: Reading comprehension is not a single ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_lshss-16-0033
11.
CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.BarthA. E.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9406-3
12.
CiulloS.ReutebuchC. (2013). Computer-based graphic organizers for students with LD: A systematic review of literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(4), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12017
13.
CiulloS.LembkeE. S.CarlisleA.ThomasC. N.GoodwinM.JuddL. (2016). Implementation of evidence-based literacy practices in middle school response to intervention: An observation study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714566120
14.
CiulloS.LoY. L. S.WanzekJ.ReedD. K. (2016). A synthesis of research on informational text reading interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414539566
15.
ClemensN. H.FuchsD. (2021). Commercially Developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool's gold?. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415
16.
ComptonD. L.MillerA. C.EllemanA. M.SteacyL. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability?Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.836200
17.
ComptonD. L.MillerA. C.GilbertJ. K.SteacyL. M. (2013). What can be learned about the reading comprehension of poor readers through the use of advanced statistical modeling techniques? In MillerB.CuttingL. E.McCardleP. (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, & genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 135–147). Brookes.
18.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
19.
CromleyJ. G.AzevedoR. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
20.
CromleyJ. G.Snyder-HoganL. E.Luciw-DubasU. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
21.
DexterD. D.HughesC. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400104
22.
DidionL.TosteJ. R. (2021). Data mountain: Self-monitoring, goal setting, and positive attributions to enhance the oral reading fluency of elementary students with or at-risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211043482
23.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
24.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.CableA.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
25.
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), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802539200
26.
EllemanA. M.OslundE. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
27.
ElwérÅ.GustafsonS.ByrneB.OlsonR. K.KeenanJ. M.SamuelssonS. (2015). A retrospective longitudinal study of cognitive and language skills in poor reading comprehension. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12188
28.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301
29.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 7(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
30.
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(2), 279–320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
31.
GoldsteinH.LackeyK. C.SchneiderN. J. (2014). A new framework for systematic reviews: Application to social skills interventions for preschoolers with autism. Exceptional Children, 80(3), 262–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914522423
32.
GoughP. B.HooverW. A.PetersonC. L.CornoldiC.OakhillJ. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1–13). Lawrence Erlbaum.
HallC. S. (2016). Inference instruction for struggling readers: A synthesis of intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9295-x
35.
HattanC. (2019). Prompting rural students’ use of background knowledge and experience to support comprehension of unfamiliar content. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(4), 451–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.270
36.
HedbergE. C. (2014). ROBUMETA: Stata module to perform robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Statistical software components S457219. Boston College Department of Economics.
37.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
38.
HirschE. (2006). Building knowledge. American Educator, 30(1), 8–51.
IrwinM.SuppleeL. H. (2012). Directions in implementation research methods for behavioral and social science. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 39(4), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-012-9293-z
41.
JitendraA. K.BurgessC.GajriaM. (2011). Cognitive strategy instruction for improving expository text comprehension of students with learning disabilities: The quality of evidence. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700201
42.
JosephL. M.Alber-MorganS.CullenJ.RouseC. (2016). The effects of self-questioning on reading comprehension: A literature review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32(2), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2014.891449
43.
KimW.Linan-ThompsonS.MisquittaR. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352.x
44.
KimA. H.VaughnS.WanzekJ.WeiS. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020201
45.
KlingerJ. K.VaughnS.HughesM. T.SchummJ. S.ElbaumB. (1998). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 153–161.
46.
KuderS. J. (2017). Vocabulary instruction for secondary students with reading disabilities: An updated research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690113
47.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.211
48.
LeeS. H.TsaiS. F. (2017). Experimental intervention research on students with specific poor comprehension: A systematic review of treatment outcomes. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 917–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9697-x
49.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
50.
LoniganC. J.BurgessS. R.SchatschneiderC. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833
51.
MarulisL. M.NeumanS. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087
52.
McKennaM. C.StahlK. A. D. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction. Guilford Press.
53.
McNamaraD. S.LevinsteinI. B.BoonthumC. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195567
54.
O’ReillyT.WangZ.SabatiniJ. (2019). How much knowledge is too little? When a lack of knowledge becomes a barrier to comprehension. Psychological Science, 30(9), 1344–1351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619862276
55.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
56.
ProctorC. P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246
57.
RechtD. R.LeslieL. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16
58.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
59.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
60.
SmithR.SnowP.SerryT.HammondL. (2021). The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology, 42(3), 214–240.
61.
SolisM.CiulloS.VaughnS.PyleN.HassaramB.LerouxA. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402691
62.
StetterM. E.HughesM. T. (2010). Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(1), 115–151. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0087
63.
StevensE. A.ParkS.VaughnS. (2019). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978–2016. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517749940
64.
SwansonE.HairrellA.KentS.CiulloS.WanzekJ. A.VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131
65.
SwansonE.VaughnS.WanzekJ.PetscherY.HeckertJ.CavanaughC.KraftG.TackettK. (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378444
66.
TalwarA. L.TigheE.GreenbergD. (2018). Augmenting the simple view of reading for struggling adult readers: A unique role for background knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(5), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1450410
67.
ter BeekM.BrummerL.DonkerA. S.OpdenakkerM. C. J. (2018). Supporting secondary school students’ reading comprehension in computer environments: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12260
68.
TilstraJ.McMasterK.Van den BroekP.KendeouP.RappD. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
69.
VaughnS.ElbaumB. E.WanzekJ.ScammaccaN.WalkerM. A. (2014). Code sheet and guide for education-related intervention study syntheses. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.
70.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K–3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
71.
WillinghamD. T. (2006). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American Educator, 30(4), 39–50.
72.
WrightT. S.CervettiG. N. (2017). A systematic review of the research on vocabulary instruction that impacts text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.163
73.
XinJ. F.RiethH. (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 12(1), 87–103.
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.
