Effects of Varying Levels of Data Use to Intensify a Multisyllabic Word Reading Intervention for Upper Elementary Students With or at Risk for Reading Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2022
Effects of Varying Levels of Data Use to Intensify a Multisyllabic Word Reading Intervention for Upper Elementary Students With or at Risk for Reading Disabilities
For students who show inadequate response to research-based intervention, intensification of intervention using data-based decision making (DBDM) is recommended. There is a paucity of research on upper elementary students related to the efficacy of (a) word reading interventions and (b) DBDM procedures. This randomized controlled trial examined the differential effects of data use at two timepoints to intensify a multisyllabic word reading intervention for Grades 4 and 5 students with or at risk for reading disabilities (RD). Eighty-eight students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: initial customization of the intervention (IC-only), initial customization with DBDM (IC + DBDM), or a business-as-usual comparison condition. Results indicated that (a) students in both treatment conditions outperformed the comparison condition on multisyllabic word reading and (b) students in the IC + DBDM condition also outperformed comparison students on decoding. Implications, including the use of DBDM in addition to IC-only as well as methods for decision-making within a small-group context, are discussed.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593592
2.
ArdoinS. P.ChristT. J.MorenaL. S.CormierD. C.KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding Curriculum-Based Measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004
3.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
4.
BhattacharyaA.EhriL. C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 331–348.
5.
ChristT. J.ArañasY. A.KemberJ. M.KissA. J.McCarthy-TrentmanA.MonaghenB. D.. . . WhiteM. J. (2014). Formative assessment system for teachersTM technical manual: EarlyReading, CBMReading, aReading, aMath, and earlyMath. Formative Assessment System for Teachers.
6.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers. 1.0. Author.
7.
CoyneM.SimmonsD.Hagan-BurkeS.SimmonsL.KwokO.KimM.. . . RawlinsonD. (2013). Adjusting beginning reading intervention based on student performance: An experimental evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291308000101
8.
Das-SmaalE. A.KlapwijkM. J.van der LeijA. (1996). Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 221–250. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_3
9.
DatnowA.HubbardL. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086131
12.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Council for Exceptional Children.
13.
DentonC. A.AnthonyJ. L.ParkerR.HasbrouckJ. E. (2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289–305.
14.
DentonC. A.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.BarthA. E.VaughnS.FrancisD. J. (2013). Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032581
15.
DilibertoJ. A.BeattieJ. R.FlowersC. P.AlgozzineR. F. (2008). Effects of teaching syllable skills instruction on reading achievement in struggling middle school readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(1), 14–27.
16.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC.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(1), 262–300.
17.
EhriL. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
18.
FildermanM. J.TosteJ. R.DidionL. A.PengP.ClemensN. H. (2018). Data-based decision making in reading interventions: A synthesis and meta-analysis of the effects for struggling readers. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 174–187.
19.
FountasI. C.PinnellG. S. (2009). Leveled literacy intervention. Heinemann.
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514558337
21.
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001174
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000209
GallagherL.MeansB.PadillaC. (2008). Teachers’ use of student data systems to improve instruction: 2005 to 2007. U.S. Department of Education.
25.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ. C.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.371
26.
HedgesL. V.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706
27.
HeggieL.Wade-WoolleyL. (2017). Reading longer words: Insights into multisyllabic word reading. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.sig1.86
28.
HintzeJ. M.ChristT. J.MetheS. A. (2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20128
HoxJ. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
LenzB. K.HughesC. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 149–158.
32.
JenkinsJ.TerjesonK. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00322.x
33.
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, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12172
34.
KearnsD. M.SteacyL. M.ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.GoodwinA. P.ChoE.LindstromE. R.CollinsA. A. (2016). Modeling polymorphemic word recognition: Exploring differences among children with early-emerging and late-emerging word reading difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 368–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414554229
LuoW.CappaertK. J.NingL. (2015). Modelling partially cross-classified multilevel data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 68(2), 342–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12050
38.
MathesP.DentonC.FletcherJ.AnthonyJ.FrancisD.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.40.2.2
39.
NagyW.BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.
40.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). 2019 reading Grades 4 and 8 assessment report cards: Summary data tables for national and state average scores and achievement level results. U.S. Department of Education.
41.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. U.S. Department of Education.
42.
PenneyC. G. (2002). Teaching decoding skills to poor readers in high school. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 99–118.
43.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.
44.
PerryC.ZieglerJ. C.ZorziM. (2010). Beyond single syllables: Large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process (CDP++) model. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 106–151.
45.
RobertsC.RobertsS. A. (2005). Design and analysis of clinical trials with clustering effects due to treatment. Clinical Trials, 2(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn076oa
46.
ŠevaN.MonaghanP.ArciuliJ. (2009). Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues and lexical stress assignment. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 237–249.
SteckerP. M.LembkeE. S. (2011). Advanced applications of CBM in reading (K-6): Instructional decision-making strategies manual. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
49.
SwansonE. A.WexlerJ.VaughnS. (2009). Text reading and students with learning disabilities. In HiebertE. H. (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 210–230). Guilford Press.
50.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR.RashotteC. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency: (TOWRE-2). Pearson Clinical Assessment.
51.
TosteJ. R.CapinP.VaughnS.RobertsG. J.KearnsD. M. (2017a). Multisyllabic word-reading instruction with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A pilot investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 117, 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1086/691684
52.
TosteJ. R.CapinP.WilliamsK. J.ChoE.VaughnS. (2019). Replication of an experimental study investigating the efficacy of a multisyllabic word reading intervention with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775114
53.
TosteJ. R.WilliamsK. J.CapinP. (2017b). Reading big words: Instructional practices to promote multisyllabic word reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(5), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216676797
54.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006). Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270060601
55.
VanDerHeydenA. M.BurnsM. K. (2018). Improving decision making in school psychology: Making a difference in the lives of students, not just a prediction about their lives. School Psychology Review, 47, 385–395. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2018-0042.v47-4
56.
VaughnS.SolísM.MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.FletcherJ. M. (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1126386
57.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12031
58.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.RobertsG. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. RMC Research Corporation.
59.
VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA.CirinoP.RomainM.FrancisD.FletcherJ.DentonC. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–407.
60.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Pro-Ed.
61.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN. K.MetzK.MurrayC. S.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212
62.
What Works Clearinghouse (2014). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0).
63.
WhiteT. G.SowellJ.YanagiharaA. (1989). Teaching elementary students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42(4), 302–308.
64.
WoodcockR. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Third edition. Pearson.
65.
YapM. J.BalotaD. A. (2009). Visual word recognition of multisyllabic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 502–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.001
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.
