This study investigates the impact of advanced explicit phonics and spelling instruction on the oral reading fluency of highly skilled first-grade readers, filling a gap in the literature. While the necessity and enjoyment of phonics instruction for this population are debated, evidence suggests benefits for students with high phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. Using a single-case multiple-baseline across-subjects design, six students participated in daily 30-min interventions over an 8-week period. Data-based decision-making was used to group students, identify instructional targets, monitor progress, and determine the need for decoding or spelling review. Results showed gains in oral reading fluency for all students, with greater growth among those with more advanced decoding and spelling skills. Both the instructor and students viewed the intervention favorably. This study offers preliminary evidence that advanced explicit phonics and spelling instruction can be enjoyable and improve student outcomes, with implications for early enrichment and data-based differentiation.
Plain Language Summary
Supporting Highly Skilled First-Grade Readers with Targeted Decoding and Spelling Lessons
This study explored whether advanced phonics and spelling lessons could help highly skilled first-grade readers become even more fluent. While some question the value of phonics instruction for students who are already strong readers relative to grade-level standards, research suggests that children with robust early literacy skills—like recognizing sounds in words and knowing letter patterns—can still benefit from instruction that is targeted and appropriately challenging. Nevertheless, questions remain about the effectiveness of such instruction. Six first-grade students participated in the study, receiving 30-min daily lessons over 8 weeks. These lessons focused on advanced phonics and spelling concepts that the students had not yet fully mastered. Instructional decisions—such as how to group students, what to teach, and when to review—were guided by ongoing analysis of student data. All students demonstrated improvements in their oral reading fluency, with the most significant growth seen in those who started with stronger decoding and spelling skills. Both the teacher and the students reported enjoying the lessons and finding them valuable. Overall, these findings suggest that advanced phonics and spelling instruction can be both effective and engaging for young, highly skilled primary readers. This approach may offer a promising way to provide early enrichment and targeted support for students who are ready for more challenging literacy instruction but have not yet fully mastered foundational skills.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
2.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.GreulichL.MeadowsJ.LiZ. (2011). Assessment data-informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1086/659031
3.
Al OtaibaS.McMasterK.WanzekJ.ZaruM. W. (2023). What we know and need to know about literacy interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties and disabilities, including dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.458
4.
AlresheedF.HottB.BanoC. (2013). Single subject research: A synthesis of analytic methods. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.58729/2167-3454.1015
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.HeoN.DockeryL. (2013). High-ability students’ participation in specialized instructional delivery models: Variations by aptitude, grade, gender, and content area. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213479654
7.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.VanTassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA.LipscombJ.ForstadtL. (2015). A nation empowered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vols. 1–2). University of Iowa, Belin-Blank Center.
8.
BerkeleyS.ScanlonD.BaileyT. R.SuttonJ. C.SaccoD. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867
9.
BernsteinB. O.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2021). Academic acceleration in gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500
10.
BiancoM. (2010). Strength-based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory into Practice, 49(4), 232–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2010.510763
11.
BlachmanB. A.BallE. W.BlackR.TangelD. M. (2000). Road to the code: A phonological awareness program for young children. Paul H. Brookes.
BrightonC. M.MoonT. R.HuangF. H. L. (2015). Advanced readers in Reading First classrooms: Who was really “left behind”? Considerations for the field of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 257–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592501
14.
BrossartD. F.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.PatienceM. A. (2014). Incorporating nonoverlap indices with visual analysis for quantifying intervention effectiveness in single-case experimental designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.868361
15.
BrownE. (2012). Is response to intervention and gifted education compatible?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428200
16.
ByrneB.Fielding-BarnsleyR. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.313
ChiuY. D., & Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762055
19.
ChristensenC.BoweyJ. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0904_1
20.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students [The Templeton National Report on Acceleration]. University of Iowa. https://www.accelerationinstitute.org/nation_deceived/
21.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
22.
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(4), 305–336. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0804_1
23.
ConnorC. M.MorrisonF. J.SchatschneiderC.TosteJ.LundblomE.CroweE. C.FishmanB. (2011). Effective classroom instruction: Implications of child characteristics by reading instruction interactions of first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.510179
24.
ConnorC. M.PiastaS. B.FishmanB.GlasneyS.SchatschneiderC.CroweE.UnderwoodP.MorrisonF. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
25.
ContesseV. A.CampeseT.KaplanR.MullenD.PicoD. L.GageN. A.LaneH. B. (2021). The effects of an intensive summer literacy intervention on reader development. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1765441
26.
CoyneM. D.HarnB. A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20127
27.
CrawfordL.TindalG.StieberS. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7(4), 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea0704_04
28.
Crepeau-HobsonF.BiancoM. (2013). Response to intervention: Promises and pitfalls for gifted students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451212454005
29.
CresswellJ. W.GuettermanT. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.
30.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
31.
de GraaffS.BosmanA. M. T.HasselmanF.VerhoevenL. (2009). Benefits of systematic phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(4), 318–333. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903001308
DenoS. L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). The Guilford Press.
34.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED144270
EhriL. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
39.
EhriL. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), S45–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
40.
EhriL. C.FlugmanB. (2018). Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction: Effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers and their students. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9792-7
41.
ElkoninD. (1971). Development of speech. In ZaporozhetsA. V.ElkoninD. B. (Eds.), The psychology of preschool children (pp. 111-185). MIT Press.
42.
EpsteinJ. L.SheldonS. B. (2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596604
43.
EspinasD. R.FuchsL. S. (2022). Data-based individualization in reading. The Reading League Journal, 3(1), 4–13.
44.
Fielding-BarnsleyR. (1997). Explicit instruction in decoding benefits children high in phonemic awareness and alphabetic knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0101_5
45.
FienH.ChardD. J.BakerS. K. (2021). Can the evidence revolution and multi-tiered systems of support improve education equity and reading achievement?Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.391
46.
FingerhutJ.XuX.MoeyaertM. (2021). Selecting the proper Tau-U measure for single-case experimental designs: Development and application of a decision flowchart. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 15(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2021.1937851
47.
FoormanB. R.TorgesenJ. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00020
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0503_3
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203521892
52.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. A.CummingsK.Dufour-MartelC.PetersenK.Powell-SmithK.StollarS.WallinJ. (2011/2020). Acadience reading K–6 assessment manual. Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/ (Original work published as DIBELS Next)
53.
GoodR. H.IIIKaminskiR. A.DeweyE. N.WallinJ.Powell-SmithK.LatimerR. (2013/2019). Acadience reading K–6 technical manual. Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/. (Original work published as DIBELS Next)
54.
GoodmanK. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In SingerH.RuddellR.B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 259–271). International Reading Association.
GreenJ.MatthewsS.CarterE.FabrizioJ.HooverJ.SchoenfeldN. A. (2012). The diamond model: A unique elementary RTI model that meets the needs of all learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(4), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451212462883
57.
HallC.Dahl-LeonardK.ChoE.SolariE.CapinP.ConnerC.HenryA.CookL.HayesL.VargasI.RichmondC.KehoeK. (2022). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
58.
HooverW. A. (2023). The simple view of reading and its broad types of reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 37, 2277–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10471-x
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(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
61.
HornerR. H.SwaminathanH.SugaiG. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0011
62.
HughesC. E.RollinsK.PerelesD. A.OmdalS.BaldwinL.BrownE. F.AbernethyS. H.ColemanM. R. (2009). Remaining challenges for the use of RtI with gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 58–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621750903200312
JacksonN. E.DonaldsonG. W.MillsJ. R. (1993). Components of reading skill in post-kindergarten precocious readers and level-matched second graders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2), 181–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969309547810
66.
JamesE.CurrieN. K.TongS. X.CainK. (2021). The relations between morphological awareness and reading comprehension in beginner readers to young adolescents. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12316
67.
JohnsenS. K.ParkerS. L.FarahY. L. (2015). Providing services for students with gifts and talents within a Response-to-Intervention framework. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(4), 233–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569358
68.
JohnstonR. S.WatsonJ. E. (2004). Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading and Writing, 17(4), 327–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000032666.66359.62
69.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437
70.
KilpatrickD. A. (2020). The article that introduced the Simple View of Reading. The Reading League Journal, 1(2), 13–14.
71.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/docs/referenceresources/wwc_scd.pdf
LambK. N.JollyJ. L.LakinJ. M. (2022). Asset-based decision making to address inequity in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211042910
74.
LaneH. B.ContesseV. A. (2022). UFLI Foundations: An explicit and systematic phonics program. Ventris Learning.
75.
LaneH. B.ContesseV. A.GageN. A.BurnsM. K. (2025). Effect of an instructional program in foundational reading skills on early literacy skills of students in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 60(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.607
76.
LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2013). Visual analysis in single-case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 23(3), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
77.
LeBeauB.AssoulineS. G.MahatmyaD.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2020). Differentiating among high-achieving learners: A comparison of classical test theory and item response theory on above-level testing. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220924050
78.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.SeveriniK. E. (2017). Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single-case design studies. Brain Impairment, 19(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/brimp.2017.16
79.
LemonsC. J.MrachkoA. A.KostewiczD. E.PaterraM. F. (2012). Effectiveness of decoding and phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207900104
80.
LindstromE. R.GeselS. A.LemonsC. J. (2019). Data-based individualization in reading: Tips for successful implementation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219837634
81.
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
82.
MaH. (2006). An alternative method for quantifying synthesis of single-subject research: Percent of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 598–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445504272974
83.
ManolovR.OnghenaP. (2022). Defining and assessing immediacy in single-case experimental designs. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 118(3), 462–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.799
84.
McCallumR. S.BellS. M.ColesJ. T.MillerK. C.HopkinsM. B.Hilton-PrillhartA. (2013). A model for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabilities) within a Response to Intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213500070
85.
McGlincheyM. T.HixsonM. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessments in reading. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086242
86.
McGowanM. R.RungeT. J.PedersenJ. A. (2016). Using curriculum-based measures for identifying gifted learners. The Roeper Review, 38(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621752110507
87.
MorrisonJ. Q.NewmanD. S.EricksonA. G. (2021). Process evaluation of literacy practices within a Multi-Tiered System of Supports framework. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 37(2), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2020.1804030
88.
NationK. (2019). Children’s reading difficulties, language, and reflections on the simple view of reading. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gtzqv
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
91.
National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing Office.
92.
NicholasM.SkourdoumbisA.BradburyO. (2024). Meeting the needs and potentials of high-ability, high-performing, and gifted students via differentiation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(2), 14–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231222225
93.
OlsonL. A.EvansJ. R.KecklerW. (2006). Precocious readers: Past, present, and future. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 205–335. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-260
94.
PapadopoulosT. C.SpanoudisG.KtistiC.FellaA. (2020). Precocious readers: A cognitive or linguistic advantage?European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00470-9
95.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.BrownL. (2009). The improvement rate difference for single-case research. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500201
96.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
97.
PeltierC.McKennaJ. W.SinclairT. E.GarwoodJ.VannestK. J. (2022). Brief report: Ordinate scaling and axis proportions of single-case graphs in two prominent EBD journals from 2010 to 2019. Behavioral Disorders, 47(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920982587
98.
PeltierC.MoranoS.ShinM.StevensonN.McKennaJ. W. (2021). A decade review of single-case graph construction in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12245
Rambo-HernandezK. E.WarneR. T. (2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(4), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915569359
105.
RaoofK.ShokriO.FathabadiJ.PanaghiL. (2024). Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors. Heliyon, 10(17), e36908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36908
106.
RaynerK.FoormanB. R.PerfettiC. A.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004
107.
ReisS. M.FogartyE. (2020). Reading and talented readers. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: A survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (pp. 361–375). Prufrock Press.
108.
ReisS. M.GubbinsE. J.BriggsC. J.SchreiberF. J.RichardsS.JacobsJ. K.EckertR. D.RenzulliJ. S. (2004). Reading instruction for talented readers: Case studies documenting few opportunities for continuous progress. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800406
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (1992). Using curriculum compacting to challenge the above average. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 51–57.
111.
ReisS. M.RenzulliS. J.RenzulliJ. S. (2021). Enrichment and gifted education pedagogy to develop talents, gifts, and creative productivity. Education Sciences, 11(10), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100615
112.
ReschlyA. L.BuschT. W.BettsJ.DenoS. L.LongJ. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading as an indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 427–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.07.001
113.
ReutzelD. R.BrandtL.FawsonP. C.JonesC. D. (2014). Exploration on the Consortium on Reading Excellence Phonics Survey: An instrument for assessing primary-grade students’ phonics knowledge. The Elementary School Journal, 115(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/676946
114.
Riley-TillmanT. C.BurnsM. K. (2010). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. The Guilford Press.
115.
RimmS.SiegleD.DavisG. (2018). Education of the gifted and talented (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
116.
RobertsonS.PfeifferS. (2016). Development of a procedural guide to implement Response to Intervention (RtI) with high-ability learners. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 38(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1112863
117.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
118.
RollinsK.MurskyC. V.Shah-ColtraneS.JohnsenS. K. (2009). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32, 320–330.
119.
SabatiniJ.WangZ.O’ReillyT. (2019). Relating reading comprehension to oral reading performance in the NAEP fourth-grade special study of oral reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.226
120.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.005
121.
SeedorfS. (2014). Response to intervention: Teachers’ needs for implementation in gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Today, 37(4), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514544029
122.
SeidenbergM. S. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.
123.
SeidenbergM. S.McClellandJ. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523
124.
ŞenN.ŞenS. (2019). Calculation of effect size in single-subject experimental studies: Examination of non-regression-based methods. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 10(1), 30–48.
125.
ShareD. L. (2011). On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self-teaching hypothesis. In BradyS. A.BrazeD.FowlerC. A. (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45–68). Psychology Press.
ShinnM. R.DitkowskyB. (2024, February15). An authentic alternative to nonsense word fluency for use with beginning readers: Technical adequacy of easy to read highly decodable passages. Data-Based Consulting. https://markshinn.org/cbm-products/
128.
ShinnM. R.GoodR. H.KnutsonN.TillyD. W. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1992.12085629
129.
SilberglittB.HintzeJ. (2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300402
130.
SmithF. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
131.
SnowC. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
132.
SnowC. E.JuelC. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch26
133.
StageS. A.JacobsenM. D. (2001). Predicting student success on a state mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086123
134.
StainthorpR.HughesD. (1998). Phonological sensitivity and reading: Evidence from precocious readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00042
135.
StainthorpR.HughesD. (1999). Learning from children who read at an early age. Routledge.
136.
StanovichK. E. (1981). Relationships between word decoding speed, general name-retrieval ability, and reading progress in first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(6), 809–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.6.809
137.
StanovichK. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307–342). Lawrence Erlbaum.
138.
StanovichK. E.CunninghamA. E.FreemanD. J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.668
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2023). The case for content-based curriculum for advanced learners. Gifted Child Today, 46(2), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175221149443
146.
WalshR. L.KempC. R. (2013). Evaluating interventions for young gifted children using single-subject methodology: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212466259
147.
WalshR. L.KempC. R.HodgeK. A.BowesJ. M. (2012). Searching for evidence-based practice: A review of the research on educational interventions for intellectually gifted children in the early childhood years. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(2), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212440610
148.
WarneR. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 34(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.686425
149.
WarneR. T. (2014). Using above-level testing to track growth in academic achievement in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513793
150.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020401
151.
WilliamsK. T. (2001). Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). Pearson.
152.
WoodP. F. (2008). Reading instruction with gifted and talented readers: A series of unfortunate events or a sequence of auspicious results?Gifted Child Today, 31(3), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2008-783
153.
YoungN. (2024). Advanced in reading (AIR). In YoungN.HasbrouckJ. (Eds.), Climbing the ladder of reading and writing: Meeting the needs of all learners (pp. 184–197). Benchmark Education.
