The authors report the effects of a yearlong, very small-group, intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with serious reading difficulties who had demonstrated low response to intervention (RTI) in both Grades 6 and 7. At the beginning of Grade 6, a cohort of students identified as having reading difficulties were randomized to treatment or comparison conditions. Treatment group students received researcher-provided reading intervention in Grade 6, which continued in Grade 7 for those with low response to intervention; comparison students received no researcher-provided intervention. Participants in the Grade 8 study were members of the original treatment (N = 28) and comparison (N = 13) conditions who had failed to pass a state-mandated reading comprehension test in both Grades 6 and 7. In Grade 8, treatment group students received a 50-minute, daily, individualized, intensive reading intervention in groups of two to four students per teacher. The results showed that students in the treatment condition demonstrated significantly higher scores than comparison students on standardized measures of comprehension (effect size = 1.20) and word identification (effect size = 0.49), although most continued to lack grade-level proficiency in reading despite 3 years of intervention. Findings from this study provide a rationale for intensive intervention for middle school students with severe reading difficulties.
Al OtaibaS. D. (2000). Children who do not respond to early literacy intervention: A longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(04), 1354A. (UMI No. 9970028)
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
3.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.VermeulenK.OgierS.BrooksherR.ZookD.LemosZ. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 59–76.
4.
BiancarosaC.SnowC. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
5.
CenterY.FreemanL.RobertsonG. (2001). The relative effect of a code-oriented and a meaning-oriented early literacy program on regular and low progress Australian students in year 1 classrooms which implement reading recovery. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 207–232.
6.
ChenH. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
DeshlerD. D.HockM. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Where we are, where we need to go. In PressleyM.BillmanA. K.PerryK. H.ReffittK. E.ReynoldsJ. M. (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 98-128). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.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.
9.
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.
10.
FazioB. B. (1997). Learning a new poem: Memory for connected speech and phonological awareness in low-income children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 40, 1285–1297.
11.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic deficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 30–37.
12.
FoormanB. R. (2003). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore, MD: York Press.
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21, 45–58.
15.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (1998). Does special education raise academic achievement for students with disabilities? (Working Paper No. 6690). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
HurfordD. P. (1990). Training phonemic segmentation ability with a phonemic discrimination intervention in second- and third-grade children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 564–569.
17.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM. (1993). Examining the validity two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.
18.
JuelC.Minden-CuppC. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458–492.
19.
KamilM.BormanG.DoleJ.KralC.SalingerT.TorgesenJ. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
20.
KimJ. S.SamsonJ. F.FitzgeraldR.HartryA. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4-6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 1109–1129.
21.
MastropieriM.ScruggsT. E.GraetzJ. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
22.
PerfettiC. A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skills. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
23.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM. S.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation. Center on Instruction. Available at http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/COI%20Struggling%20Readers.pdf
24.
ShinnJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. A. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172.
25.
ShinnM. R.ShinnM. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/uploads/pdfs/scoring_maze.pdf
TorgesenJ. K.MyersD.SchirmA.StuartE.VartivarianS.MansfieldW.HaanC. (2006). National assessment of the Title I interim report to congress: Volume II: Closing the reading gap, first year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/vol2.pdf
28.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1997). The prevention and remediation of sever reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217–234.
29.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
30.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A.JenkinsJ. R. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 227–241.
31.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA. E.CirinoP. T.RomainM.. . . FletcherJ. M. (in press). The effects of tertiary treatments on middle school students with reading disabilities: Individualized versus standardized approaches. Exceptional Children.
32.
VaughnS.CirinoP. T.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.FletcherJ. M.DentonC. D.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
33.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. (2010). Thoughts on rethinking response to intervention with secondary students. School Psychology Review, 39, 296–299.
34.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
35.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.LyonG. R. (2000). Differen-tiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
36.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
37.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. (2010). The test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
38.
WanzekJ. (2005). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students demonstrating insufficient response to intervention (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
39.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
40.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 151–163.
41.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FletcherJ. M. (in press). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students identified with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children.
42.
WilliamsJ. P. (2001). Commentary: Four meta-analyses and some general observations. Elementary School Journal, 101, 349–354.
43.
WilsonB. (1996). Wilson reading system. Willbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.
44.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
