Alber-MorganS. R.RampE. M.AndersonL. L.MartinC. M. (2007). Effects of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension of middle school students with behavior problems. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 17–30. doi:10.1177/00224669070410010201
2.
ArcherA. L.HughesC. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
3.
ArdoinS. P.BinderK. S.FosterT. E.ZawoyskiA. M. (2016). Repeated versus wide reading: A randomized control design study examining the impact of fluency interventions on underlying reading behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 13–38. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.09.002
4.
BegenyJ. C.MitchellR. C.WhitehouseM. H.HarrisC. F.StageS. A. (2011). Effects of the HELPS reading fluency program when implemented by classroom teachers with low-performing second-grade students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 122–133. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00332.x
5.
BiancarosaG.ShanleyL. (2016). What is fluency? In CummingsK. D.PetscherY.CummingsK. D.PetscherY. (Eds.), The fluency construct: Curriculum-based measurement concepts and applications (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
6.
Bowman-PerrotL.DavisH.VannestK.WilliamsL.GreenwoodC.ParkerR. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School Psychology Review, 42, 39–55.
7.
BurnsM. K.Riley-TillmanT. C.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2012). RTI applications: Academic and behavioral interventions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M.JibanC. L. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401.
9.
CoddingR. S.ArcherJ.ConnellJ. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93–105. doi:10.1007/s10864-010-9102-9
10.
CoddingR. S.BurnsM. K.LukitoG. (2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic-fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 36–47. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x
11.
DatchukS. M.KubinaR. M. (2013). A review of teaching sentence-level writing skills to students with writing difficulties and learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 180–192. doi:10.1177/0741932512448254
12.
DuhonG. J.MesmerE. M.AtkinsM. E.GregusonL. A.OlingerE. S. (2009). Quantifying intervention intensity: A systematic approach to evaluating student response to increasing intervention frequency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 101–118. doi:10.1007/s10864-009-9086-5
13.
EckertT. L.ArdoinS. P.DalyE. J.MartensB. 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. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-271
14.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Reports of the subgroups (00-4754). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.
FureyW. M.MarcotteA. M.HintzeJ. M.ShackettC. M. (2016). Concurrent validity and classification accuracy of curriculum-based measurement for written expression. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 369–382. doi:10.1037/spq0000138
18.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
19.
GrahamS.BollingerA.Booth OlsonC.D’AoustC.MacArthurC.McCutchenD.OlinghouseN. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
HierB. O.EckertT. L. (2016). Programming generality into a performance feedback writing intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 56, 111–131. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.03.003
22.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
KoenigE. A.EckertT. L.HierB. O. (2016). Using performance feedback and goal setting to improve elementary students’ writing fluency: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Review, 45, 275–295. doi:10.17105/SPR45-3.275-295
25.
KubinaR. M.YurichK. K. L. (2012). The precision teaching book. Lemont, PA: Greatness Achieved.
26.
MartensB. K.DalyE. J.BegenyJ. C.Van Der HeydenA. (2011). Behavioral approaches to education. In FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.RoaneH. S. (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 385–401). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
MartensB. K.WerderC. S.HierB. O.KoenigE. A. (2013). Fluency training in phoneme blending: A preliminary study of generalized effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 16–36. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9159-8
28.
MasonL. H.KubinaR.TaftR. (2011). Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 205–220. doi:10.1177/0022466909350780
29.
MetheS. A.KilgusS. P.NeimanC.Riley-TillmanT. C. (2012). Meta-analysis of interventions for basic mathematics computation in single-case research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 230–253. doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9161-1
30.
MorganP. L.SideridisG.HuaY. (2012). Initial and over-time effects of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 94–116. doi:10.1177/0022466910398016
31.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov
32.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: A first look. 2013 mathematics and reading (NCES 2014-2015). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov
33.
Pearson Education. (2006). AIMSweb national norms technical documentation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aimsweb.com
34.
Pearson Education. (2015). AIMSweb national norms technical documentation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aimsweb.com
35.
SantangeloT.GrahamS. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 225–265. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9335-1
36.
SchutteG. M.DuhonG. J.SolomonB. G.PoncyB. C.MooreK.StoryB. (2015). A comparative analysis of massed vs. distributed practice on basic math fact fluency growth rates. Journal of School Psychology, 53, 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.003
37.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261. doi:10.1177/07419325040250040801
38.
TherrienW. J.HughesC. (2008). Comparison of repeated reading and question generation on students’ reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 1–16.
39.
WexlerJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.DentonC. A. (2010). The efficacy of repeated reading and wide reading practice for high school students with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 2–10. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00296.x
40.
YeoS. (2010). Predicting performance on state achievement tests using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A multilevel meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 412–422. doi:10.1177/0741932508327463