Research supports the efficacy of intensive literacy instruction for children with moderate intellectual disabilities and Down syndrome (DS). However, much of the literature features measures closely aligned with evaluated interventions. Despite their increasing role in instruction, curriculum-based measures (CBM) are rarely featured in reading studies involving DS. Increasing the use of CBM in research has the potential to provide insight into the effectiveness of intervention and address concerns regarding the utility of approaches predicated on CBM. This single-case design study used CBM to examine the performance of children with DS (N = 17) who had largely exhibited gains on intervention-aligned measures following an intensive reading intervention. Results of multilevel modeling were mixed, with significant (p < .05) effects relegated to letter- and first-sound fluency. No more than 29% of participants met goals created using a procedure derived from CBM. Findings have implications for future studies and implementation of literacy interventions for children with DS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahlgrim-DelzellL.RiveraC. (2015). A content comparison of literacy lessons from 2004 and 2010 for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Exceptionality, 23(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064417
2.
AllorJ. H.GiffordD. B.Al OtaibaS.MillerS. J.CheathamJ. P. (2014). Teaching students with intellectual disability to integrate reading skills: Effects of text and text-based lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513494020
3.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.JonesF. G.ChamplinT. M. (2010). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(1), 3–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880147
4.
AndersonD.LaiC. F.ParkB. J.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2012). An examination of test-retest, alternate form reliability, and generalizability theory study of the easyCBM reading assessments: Grade 1. Behavioral Research and Teaching. https://www.brtprojects.org/
5.
BaekE. K.FerronJ. M. (2013). Multilevel models for multiple-baseline data: Modeling across participant variation in autocorrelation and residual variance. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0231-z
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BirdE. K. R.CleaveP. L.McConnellL. (2000). Reading and phonological awareness in children with down syndrome: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(4), 319–330. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1044/1058-0360.0904.319
9.
BoatT.F.WuJ. T. (2015). Mental disorders and disabilities among low-income children. National Academies Press.
10.
BrownellM. T.SindelarP. T.KielyM. T.DanielsonL. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307
11.
BruhnA. L.RilaA.MahatmyaD.EstrapalaS.HendrixN. (2020). The effects of data-based, individualized interventions for behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 28(1), 3–16. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1177/1063426618806279
12.
BurgoyneK.DuffF. J.ClarkeP. J.BuckleyS.SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (2012). Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for children with down syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), 1044–1053.
13.
BurgoyneK.DuffF.SnowlingM.BuckleyS.HulmeC. (2013). Training phoneme blending skills in children with down syndrome. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(3), 273–290https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02557.x
14.
BurroughsN.GardnerJ.LeeY.GouS.TouitouI.JansenK.SchmidtW. (2019). Teaching for excellence and equity: Analyzing Teacher Characteristics, Behaviors and Student Outcomes with TIMSS (Vol. 6; pp.) Springer.
15.
CallenderA.KingS. A.HowardM. (2020). Social validity assessment: Examples from a functional skills training intervention. In J. A. Jaworski (Ed.), Advances in sociology research (Vol. 31). Nova Science Publishers.
16.
ClemensN. H.LeeK.HenriM.SimmonsL. E.KwokO. M.Al OtaibaS. (2020). Growth on sublexical fluency progress monitoring measures in early kindergarten and relations to word reading acquisition. Journal of School Psychology, 79, 43–62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.003
17.
CologonK.CupplesL.WyverS. (2011). Effects of targeted reading instruction on phonological awareness and phonic decoding in children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116(2), 111–129https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.003
DessemontetR. S.de ChambrierA. F. (2015). The role of phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge in the reading development of children with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 1–12https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.04.001
20.
DessemontetR. S.MartinetC.de ChambrierA. F.Martini-WilleminB. M.AudrinC. (2019). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of phonics instruction for teaching decoding skills to students with intellectual disabilities. Educational Research Review, 26, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.001
21.
FerronJ. M.BellB. A.HessM. R.Rendina-GobioffG.HibbardS. T. (2009). Making treatment effect inferences from multiple-baseline data: The utility of multilevel modeling approaches. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.372
22.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important?Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SteckerP. M. (2020). Bringing data-based individualization to scale: A call for the next-generation technology of teacher supports. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420950654
24.
FuchsD.HendricksE.WalshM. E.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.Zhang TracyW.Patton IIIS.Davis-PerkinsN.KimW.EllemanA. M.PengP. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near-transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12162
25.
GriecoJ.PulsiferM.SeligsohnK.SkotkoB.SchwartzA. (2015). Down syndrome: Cognitive and behavioral functioning across the lifespan. American Journal of Medical Genetics-C, 169(2), 135–149https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31439
26.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A.DeweyE. N.WallinJ.Powell-SmithK. A.LatimerR. J. (2013). DIBELS Next technical manual. Dynamic Measurement Group.
27.
HospJ. L.HensleyK.HuddleS. M.FordJ. W. (2014). Using curriculum-based measures with postsecondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 247–257. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1177/0741932514530572
28.
HuaY.HinzmanM.YuanC.Balint LangelK. (2020). Comparing the effects of Two reading interventions using a randomized alternating treatment design. Exceptional Children, 86(4), 355–373. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1177/0014402919881357
29.
Hurtado-ParradoC.López-LópezW. (2015). Single-case research methods: history and suitability for a psychological science in need of alternatives. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(3), 323–349.
HwangY.LevinJ. R.JohnsonE. W. (2018). Pictorial mnemonic-strategy interventions for children with special needs: Illustration of a multiply randomized single-case crossover design. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21(4), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2015.1100689
32.
JungP. G.McMasterK. L.KunkelA. K.ShinJ.SteckerP. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 144–155. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1111/ldrp.12172
33.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test (2nd ed.). NCS Pearson.
34.
KenwardM. G.RogerJ. H. (2017). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53(3), 983–997. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533558
35.
KingS. A.LemonsC. J.DavidsonK. A.FulmerD.MrachkoA. A. (2020). Reading instruction for children with down syndrome: Extending research on behavioral phenotype aligned interventions. Exceptionality, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1749631
KittelmanA.GionC.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.KratochwillT. R. (2018). Establishing journalistic standards for the publication of negative results. Remedial and Special Education, 39(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517745491
38.
LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 445–463https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
39.
LawsG.GunnD. (2002). Relationships between reading, phonological skills and language development in individuals with Down syndrome: A five year follow-up study. Reading and Writing, 15(5), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016364126817.
40.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. (3rd ed.) Routledge.
41.
LemonsC. J.FuchsD. (2010). Modeling response to reading intervention in children with down syndrome: An examination of predictors of differential growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 134–168. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.1
42.
LemonsC.J.GeselS.A.LeJuneL.M. (2019). Intensive intervention for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In R. Z.EdmondsA. G.GandhiL.Danielson (Eds.), Essentials of intensive intervention (pp. 71–96). Guilford Press.
43.
LemonsC. J.KingS. A.DavidsonK. A.PuranikC. S.Al OtaibaS.MrachkoA. A.PartanenJ.FidlerD. J. (2017). Developing an early reading intervention aligned with the down syndrome behavioral phenotype. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 32(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357615618941
44.
LemonsC. J.KingS. A.DavidsonK. A.PuranikC. S.Al OtaibaS.FidlerD. J. (2018). Personalized reading intervention for children with Down syndrome. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.07.006
45.
LemonsC. J.ZigmondN.KlooA. M.HillD. R.MrachkoA. A.PaterraM. F.BostT. J.DavisS. M. (2013). Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage reading fluency. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 408–426. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/10.1177/001440291307900402
46.
LimL.ArciuliJ.MunroN.CupplesL. (2019). Using the MULTILIT literacy instruction program with children who have Down syndrome. Reading and Writing, 32(9), 2179–2200https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09945-8
LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.GrundS. (2017). Multiple imputation of missing data in multilevel designs: A comparison of different strategies. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 141–165https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000096.
Melby-LervågM.LysterS. A.HulmeC. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744.
OteroT. M. (2017). Brief review of fluid reasoning: conceptualization, neurobasis, and applications. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 6(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2017.1317484
53.
PsyridouM.EklundK.PoikkeusA. M.TorppaM. (2018). Reading outcomes of children with delayed early vocabulary: A follow-up from age 2–16. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 78, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.004
54.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
55.
RochM.MatteraL.SimionE. (2019). Reading for comprehension: The contribution of decoding, linguistic and cognitive skills. In S.Lanfranchi (Ed.), International review of research in developmental disabilities (Vol. 56, pp. 213–255). Academic Press.
56.
RodadaughE.MoeyaertM. (2017). Multilevel modeling of single-case data: An introduction and tutorial for the applied researcher. Northeastern Educational Research Association Conference, Mansfield, CT, United States. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/nera-2017/8
57.
RodgersD.KingS. A.LemonsC. J. (2021). Validity of curriculum-based measures in reading for children with intellectual disabilities. Manuscript in preparation.
58.
SaundersK. J.DeFulioA. (2007). Phonological awareness and rapid naming predict word attack and word identification in adults with mild mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2007)112[155:PAARNP]2.0.CO;2
59.
ShadishW. R.KylseE. N.RindskopfD. M. (2013). Analyzing data from single-case designs using multilevel models: New applications and some agenda items for future research. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032964
60.
SteeleA.ScerifG.CornishK.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2013). Learning to read in Williams syndrome and Down syndrome: Syndrome-specific precursors and developmental trajectories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(7), 754–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12070
61.
SwanD. M.PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). A gradual effects model for single-case designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(4), 574–593.
62.
SymondsM. R. E.MoussalliA. (2010). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioral ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 13–21.
63.
TarlowK. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline corrected Tau. Behavior Modification, 41(4), 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1466681
64.
TindalG. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement: A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to the present. ISRNEducation, 1–29.
65.
VanMeverenK.HulacD.Wollersheim-SherveyS. (2020). Universal screening methods and models: Diagnostic accuracy of reading assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 45(4), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418819797
66.
van BysterveldtA. K.GillonG.Foster-CohenS. (2010). Integrated speech and phonological awareness intervention for pre-school children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 320–335. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820903003514
67.
Van NormanE. R.MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.McComasJ. J.HelmanL. (2018). Comparison of progress monitoring data from general outcome measures and specific subskill mastery measures for reading. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.002
68.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What works clearinghouse standards handbook, Version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks.
69.
YoderP. J.Bottema-BeutelK.WoynaroskiT.ChandrasekharR.SandbankM. (2013). Social communication intervention effects vary by dependent variable type in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 7(4), 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2014.917780
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.
