The authors sought to (a) identify interventions that immediately increased the oral reading fluency of students with or at risk for disabilities, (b) estimate to what extent these gains maintained over time, and (c) evaluate whether particular characteristics of students (e.g., gender, disability status) predicted their response to fluency interventions. We used multilevel modeling to meta-analyze results from 44 single-participant studies involving 290 students. Results indicated that goal setting immediately increased fluency, and this gain continued over time. Word-level training was largely ineffective. Students with some types of disabilities (i.e., those with behavioral disorders or autism) responded significantly less well to interventions targeting fluency than did students with other types of disabilities (i.e., those with learning disabilities or visual impairments) and so may require more intensive and individualized fluency interventions.
AdamsM. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AllingtonR. L. (1983). The neglected reading goal in reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.
3.
AsparouhovT. (2004). Weighting for unequal probability of selection in multilevel modeling (Mplus Web Notes No. 8). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
4.
*Barton-ArwoodS. M.WehbyJ. H.FalkK. B. (2005). Reading instruction for elementary-age students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Academic and behavioral outcomes. Exceptional Children, 72, 7–27.
5.
BelliniS.PetersJ.BennerL.HopfA. (2007). A meta-analysis of school-based social skill interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 153–162.
6.
*BillingsleyF. F. (1977). The effects of self- and externally-imposed reinforcement on oral reading performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 549–559.
7.
*BonfiglioC. M.DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K.LinL. H. R.CorsautS. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111–114.
8.
BreznitzZ. (2001). The determinants of reading fluency: A comparison of dyslexic and average readers. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 245–277). Timonium, MD: York Press.
9.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
BurnsM. K.WagnerD. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis of reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37, 126–136.
11.
BuskP. L.SerlinR. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research designs and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CampbellJ. M. (2004). Statistical comparisons of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28, 234–246.
13.
CassidyJ.CassidyD. (2003–2004). What’s hot, what’s not for 2004. Reading Today, 21, 3–4.
14.
ChardD. J.PikulskiJ. J.McDonaghS. H. (2006). Fluency: The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In RasinskiT.BlachnowiczC.LemsK. (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Guilford.
15.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–405.
16.
ChoiK. (2001). Latent variable modeling in the hierarchical modeling framework in longitudinal studies: A fully Bayesian approach. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2, 44–55.
17.
*DalyE. J.IIIHintzeJ. M.HamlerK. R. (2000). Improving practice by taking steps toward technological improvements in academic intervention in the new millennium. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 61–72.
18.
*DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 459–469.
19.
DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K.HamlerK. R.DoolE. J.EckertT. L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83–94.
20.
*DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K.KilmerA.MassieD. R. (1996). The effects of instructional match and content overlap on generalized reading performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 507–518.
21.
*DalyE. J.IIIPersampieriM.McCurdyM.GortmakerV. J. (2005). Generating reading interventions through experimental analysis of academic skills: Demonstration and empirical evaluation. School Psychology Review, 34, 395–414.
22.
*DawsonL.VennM. L.GunterP. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 105–113.
23.
DeciE. L.ChandlerC. L. (1986). The importance of motivation for the future of the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 587–594.
24.
de LeeuwE. D.HoxJ. J. (2003). The use of meta analysis in cross-national studies. In HarknessJ. A.van de VijverF. J. R.Ph. MohlerP. (Eds.), Cross cultural survey methods (pp. 329–346). New York, NY: John Wiley.
25.
*DuvallS. F.DelquadriJ.ElliottM.HallR. (1992). Parent-tutoring procedures: Experimental analysis and validation of generalization in oral reading across passages, settings, and time. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 281–303.
26.
*EckertT. L.ArdoinS. P.DaiseyD. M.ScarolaM. D. (2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single case designs. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 463–473.
27.
*EckertT. L.ArdoinS. P.DalyE. J.IIIMartensB. K. (2002). Improving oral reading fluency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent intervention with consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 271–281.
28.
FaithM. S.AllisonD. B.GormanB. S. (1996). Meta-analysis of single-case research. In FranklinR. D.AllisonD. B.GormanB. S. (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 245–277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
*FaykusS. P.McCurdyB. L. (1998). Evaluating the sensitivity of the maze as an index of reading proficiency for students who are severely deficient in reading. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 1–21.
30.
*FialaC. L.SheridanS. M. (2003). Parent involvement and reading: Using curriculum-based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 613–626.
31.
FrancisD.FletcherJ.StuebingK.LyonR.ShaywitzB.ShaywitzS. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–100.
32.
*FreemanT. J.McLaughlinT. F. (1984). Effects of a taped-words treatment procedure on learning disabled students’ sight-word oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 49–53.
33.
FuchsL. S.BahrC. M.RiethH. J. (1989). Effects of goal structures and performance contingencies on the math performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 554–560.
34.
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, 239–256.
35.
*GilbertL. M.WilliamsR. L.McLaughlinT. F. (1996). Use of assisted reading to increase correct reading rates and decrease error rates of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 255–257.
36.
GoldsteinH.YangM. (2000). Meta-analysis using multilevel models with an application to the study of class size effects. Applied Statistics, 49, 399–412.
37.
GouldR. A.BuckminsterS.PollackM. H.OttoM. W.YapL. (1997). Cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment for social phobia: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 291–306.
38.
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
*HitchcockC. H.PraterM. A.DowrickP. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 89–103.
41.
*HookC. L.DuPaulG. J. (1999). Parent tutoring for students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Effects on reading performance at home and school. School Psychology Review, 28, 60–75.
42.
HospM. K.FuchsL. S. (2005). Using CBM as an indicator of decoding, word reading, and comprehension: Do the relations change with grade?School Psychology Review, 34, 9–26.
43.
*HoughtonS.BainA. (1993). Peer tutoring with ESL and below-average readers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 125–142.
44.
HoxJ. J.de LeeuwE. D. (2003). Multilevel models for meta-analysis. In ReiseS. P.DuanN. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues, and applications (pp. 90–111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
HuitemaB. E.McKeanJ. W.McKnightS. (1999). Autocorrelation effects on least squares intervention analysis of short time series. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 767–786.
46.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
JensonW. R.ClarkE.KircherJ. C.KristjanssonS. D. (2007). Statistical reform: Evidence-based practice, meta-analysis, and single subject designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 483–493.
48.
*JonesK. M.WickstromK. F. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychology Review, 31, 554–568.
49.
*KampsD. M.LockeP.DelquadriJ.HallR. V. (1989). Increasing academic skills of students with autism using fifth grade peers as tutors. Education & Treatment of Children, 12, 38–51.
50.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1987). The far side of heterogeneity: A critical analysis of empirical subtyping research in learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 374–382.
51.
KobakK. A.GreistJ. H.JeffersonJ. W.KatzelnickD. J.HenkH. J. (1998). Behavioral versus pharmacological treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder: A meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology, 136, 205–216.
KuhnM. R.StahlS. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
54.
LaBargeD.SamuelsS. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
55.
*LaneK. L.O’ShaughnessyT. E.LambrosK. M.GreshamF. M.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. E. (2001). The efficacy of phonological awareness training with first-grade students who have behavior problems and reading difficulties. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 219–231.
56.
LevyB. A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 357–379). Timonium, MD: York Press.
57.
LevyB. A.AbelloB.LysynchukL. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173–188.
58.
*LionettiT. M.ColeC. L. (2004). A comparison of the effects of two rates of listening while reading on oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 114–129.
59.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
LyonG. R.MoatsL. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 578–588.
MargalitM.HeimanT. (1986). Learning-disabled boys’ anxiety, parental anxiety, and family climate. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 248–253.
63.
MargalitM.ShulmanS. (1986). Autonomy perceptions and anxiety expressions of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 291–293.
64.
MartensB. K.WittJ. C. (2004). Competence, persistence, and success: The positive psychology of behavioral skills instruction. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 19–30.
65.
MeyerM. S.FeltonR. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.
66.
MorganP. L.SideridisG. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at-risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modelling meta analysis. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 21, 191–210.
67.
National Institute of Child Health and 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 Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
68.
*NelsonJ. S.AlberS. R.GordyA. (2004). Effects of systematic error correction and repeated readings on the reading accuracy and proficiency of second graders with disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 186–198.
69.
NezlekJ. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analyses of event and interval contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771–785.
70.
NezlekJ. B. (2003). Using multilevel random coefficient modeling to analyze social interaction diary data. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 437–469.
71.
*NoellG. H.GansleK. A.WittJ. C.WhitmarshE. L.FreelandJ. T.LaFleurL. H.. . . NorthupJ. (1998). Effects of contingent reward and instruction on oral reading performance at differing levels of passage difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 659–663.
72.
O’BrienS.ReppA. C. (1990). Reinforcement-based reductive procedures: A review of 20 years of their use with persons with severe or profound mental retardation. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 148–159.
73.
*O’DonnellP.WeberK. P.McLaughlinT. F. (2003). Improving correct and error rate and reading comprehension using key words and previewing: A case report with a language minority student. Education & Treatment of Children, 26, 237–254.
74.
OliveM. L.SmithB. W. (2005). Effect size calculations and single subject designs. Educational Psychology, 25, 313–324.
75.
OnwuegbuzieA.LevinJ. R.LeachN. L. (2003). Do effect sizes measure up? A brief assessment. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 1, 37–40.
76.
*PattilloS. T.HellerK. W.SmithM. (2004). The impact of a modified repeated-reading strategy paired with optical character recognition on the reading rates of students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 98, 28–46.
77.
PerfettiC. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In DanemanM.MackinnonG. E.WallerT. G. (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). New York, NY: Academic Press.
78.
PollackB. N. (1998). Hierarchical linear modeling and the ‘unit of analysis’ problem: A solution for analyzing responses of intact group members. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 299-312.
79.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
80.
ReutzelD. R. (2006). “Hey, teacher, when you say ‘fluency,’ what do you mean?”: Developing fluency in elementary classrooms. In RasinskiT.BlachnowiczC.LemsK. (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 62–86). New York, NY: Guilford.
81.
RobertsK. J. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30–38.
82.
*RoseT. L. (1984a). Effects of previewing on the oral reading of mainstreamed behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 10, 33–39.
83.
*RoseT. L. (1984b). The effects of previewing on retarded learners’ oral reading. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 49–53.
84.
*RoseT. L. (1984c). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 544–548.
85.
*RoseT. L.BeattieJ. R. (1986). Relative effects of teacher-directed and taped previewing on oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 193–199.
86.
*RoseT. L.McEntireE.DowdyC. (1982). Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 100–105.
87.
*RoseT. L.SherryL. (1984). Relative effects of two previewing procedures on LD adolescents’ oral reading performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 39–44.
88.
RosenbergM. S. (1986). Error-correction during oral reading: A comparison of three techniques. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 182–192.
89.
RoweK. J. (2000). Simultaneous estimation of interdependent effects among multilevel composite variables in psychological research: An annotated example of the application of multilevel structural equation modeling. In DuanN.ReiseS. (Eds.), Multilevel modeling: Methodological advances, issues and applications (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
90.
SamuelsS. J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future. In RasinskiT.BlachnowiczC.LemsK. (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 7–20). New York, NY: Guilford.
91.
*ScottT. M.Shearer-LingoA. (2002). The effects of reading fluency instruction on the academic and behavioral success of middle school students in a self-contained EBD classroom. Preventing School Failure, 46, 167–173.
92.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.
93.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2001). How to summarize single participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality, 9, 227–244.
94.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–52.
95.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
96.
*ShapiroE. S.McCurdyB. L. (1989). Effects of a taped-words treatment on reading proficiency. Exceptional Children, 55, 321–325.
97.
ShinJ.EspinC. A.DenoS. L.McConnellS. (2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 136–148.
98.
SideridisG. D. (2002). Goal importance and students at-risk of having language difficulties: An underexplored aspect of student motivation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 343–356.
99.
SideridisG. D.GreenwoodC. R. (1997). Is human behavior autocorrelated? An empirical analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 273–293.
100.
*SkinnerC. H.CooperL.ColeC. L. (1997). The effects of oral presentation previewing on reading performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 331–333.
101.
*SkinnerC. H.JohnsonC. W.LarkinM. J.LessleyD. J.GlowackiM. L. (1995). The influence of rate of presentation during taped-words interventions on reading performance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 214–223.
102.
*SkinnerC. H.ShapiroE. S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.
103.
*SmithD. D. (1979). The improvement of children’s oral reading through the use of teacher modeling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 172–175.
104.
SnowC. E.BurnsM.GriffinS. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council.
105.
StanovichK. E. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 11–19.
106.
SteckerS. K.RoserN. L.MartinezM. G. (1998). Understanding oral reading fluency. In ShanahanT.Rodriguez-BrownF. V. (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 295–310). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
107.
*SterlingH. E.RobinsonS. L.SkinnerC. H. (1997). The effects of two taped-words interventions on sight-word reading in students with mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 25–32.
108.
*StrongA. C.WehbyJ. H.FalkK. B.LaneK. L. (2004). The impact of a structured reading curriculum and repeated reading on the performance of junior high students with emotional and behavioral disorders. School Psychology Review, 33, 561–581.
109.
*SwainK. D.AllinderR. M. (1996). The effects of repeated reading on two types of CBM: Computer maze and oral reading with second-grade students with learning disabilities. Diagnostique, 21, 51–66.
110.
SwansonH. L. (1999). Reading research for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504–532.
111.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.
112.
ThompsonS. G.TurnerR. M.WarnD. E. (2001). Multilevel models for meta-analysis, and their application to absolute risk differences. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10, 375–392.
113.
*TingstromD. H.EdwardsR. P.OlmiD. J. (1995). Listening previewing in reading to read: Relative effects on oral reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 318–327.
114.
TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.AlexanderA. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–356). Timonium, MD: York Press.
115.
TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC.AlexanderA.AlexanderJ.MacPheeK. (2003). Progress towards understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In FoormanB. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 275–298). Timonium, MD: York Press.
116.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007
117.
*ValleleyR. J.ShriverM. D. (2003). An examination of the effects of repeated reading with secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 55–76.
118.
*VanAukenT.ChafouleasS. M.BradleyT. A.MartensB. K. (2002). Using brief experimental analysis to select oral reading interventions: An investigation of treatment utility. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 163–179.
119.
Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2003). Hierarchical linear models for the quantitative integration of effect sizes in single-case research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 1–10.
120.
WexlerJ.VaughnS.EdmondsM.ReutebachC. K. (2008). A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 317–347.
121.
WolfM.BowersP. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for developmental dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
122.
WolfM.Katzir-CohenT. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.
