Reading comprehension is a critical skill for school success. Struggling readers can benefit from computer-assisted instruction that utilizes components of effective instruction (e.g., frequent practice, immediate feedback). The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of Headsprout Comprehension, a computer-assisted reading program, on the reading comprehension of six elementary students with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and other health impairment–attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (OHI-ADHD). A multiple baseline across participants’ design demonstrated that Headsprout Comprehension was functionally related to substantial increases in reading comprehension for all six participants as measured by Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) passage comprehension questions and AIMSweb Maze assessments.
Alber-MorganS. R. (2010). Using RTI to teach literacy to diverse learners, K-8: Strategies for the inclusive classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
2.
BerkeleyS.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436.
3.
ChambersB.AbramiP.McWhawK.TherrienM. C. (2001). Developing a computer-assisted tutoring program to help students at risk learn to read. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 223–239.
4.
ChambersB.SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A.AbramiP. C.TuckerB. J.CheungA.GiffordR. (2008). Technology infusion in success for all: Reading outcomes for first graders. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 1–15.
5.
ClarfieldJ.StonerG. (2005). The effects of computerized reading instruction on the academic performance of students identified with ADHD. School Psychology Review, 34, 246–254.
6.
GajriaM.JitendraA. K.SoodS.SacksG. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
7.
GardillM.JitendraA. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 2–17.
8.
HallT. E.HughesC. A.FilbertM. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education & Treatment of Children, 23, 173–193.
9.
Headsprout. (2009). The Headsprout Test. Retrieved from www.headsprout.com
10.
HuffstetterM.KingJ. R.OnwuegbuzieA. J.SchneiderJ. J.Powell-SmithK. A. (2010). Effects of a computer-based early reading program on the early reading and oral language skills of at-risk preschool children. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 279–298.
11.
IrasquinR. S.DrentJ.VerhoevenL. (2005). Benefits of computer-presented speed training for poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 246–265.
12.
JitendraA. K.GajriaM. (2011). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1–16.
13.
Johnson-GlenbergM. C. (2005). Web-based training of metacognitive strategies for text comprehension: Focus on poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 755–786.
14.
MacarusoP.WalkerA. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287.
15.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Reading 2011: National Assessment of Educational Progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
16.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
17.
SavageR. S.AbramiP.HippsP.GeaultL. (2009). A randomized control trial study of the Abracadabra reading intervention program in grade 1. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 590–604.
18.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the Maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 164–172.
19.
ShinnM. M.ShinnN. R. (2002). AIMSweb® training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: NCS Pearson.
20.
SolisM.CiulloS.VaughnS.PyleN.HassaramB.LerouxA. (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 327–340.
21.
SorrellC. A.BellS. M.McCallumR. S. (2007). Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: A preliminary study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22, 1–12.
22.
TwymanT.TindalG. (2006). Using a computer-adapted conceptually based history text to increase comprehension and problem-solving skills of students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 5–16.
23.
WoodcockR. N. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
