Previous research on Promoting Adolescent Comprehension of Text (PACT) found significant student-level variability in outcomes. The current study examined a potential skill-by-treatment interaction with 1,376 eighth-grade students from 13 middle schools as part of a larger evaluation study. Treatment students scored higher than control students on a measure of social studies content knowledge among students who scored 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and 1 SD above the mean on preintervention measures of reading comprehension and reading fluency. Using social studies content knowledge, pretest reading comprehension and fluency resulted in estimates of area under the curve of .77 (95% CI = [.76, .78]) and .56 (95% CI = [.55, .57]), respectively. Both sets of pretest data identified a threshold score that approximated the 30th percentile. Thus, there appeared to be a skill-by-treatment interaction for PACT based on preintervention reading skills.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848
2.
BakerD. L.BiancarosaG.ParkB. J.BousselotT.SmithJ. L.BakerS. K.Kame’enuiE. J.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2015). Validity of CBM measures of oral reading fluency and reading comprehension on high-stakes reading assessments in Grades 7 and 8. Reading and Writing, 28, 57–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9505-4
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, 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
4.
BeriN.StanikzaiM. I. (2018). Self-efficacy beliefs, student engagement and learning in the classroom: A review paper. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 22(1), 213–222.
5.
BigozziL.TarchiC.VagnoliL.ValenteE.PintoG. (2017). Reading fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4–9. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00200
6.
BurnsM. K.CoddingR. S.BoiceC. H.LukitoG. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087791
7.
BurnsM. K.Petersen-BrownS.HaegeleK.RodriguezM.SchmittB.CooperM.ClaytonK.HutchesonS.ConnerC.HospJ.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000117
8.
BurnsM. K.YoungH.McCollomE. M.StevensM. A.IzumiJ. T. (2022). Predicting intervention effects with preintervention measures of decoding: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction with kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(4), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221113026
9.
ClemensN. H.SimmonsD.SimmonsL. E.WangH.KwokO. M. (2017). The prevalence of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents struggling with reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 785–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916662120
EdmundsM. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
12.
GoldmanS. R.SnowC.VaughnS. (2016). Common themes in teaching reading for understanding: Lessons from three projects. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.586
13.
HammillD. D.WiederholtJ. L.AllenE. A. (2014). Test of silent contextual reading fluency (2nd ed.). PRO-ED.
14.
HellerR.GreenleafC. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Alliance for Excellent Education.
15.
HerreraS.TruckenmillerA. J.FoormanB. R. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research on the effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices (REL 2016-178). Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
16.
KirbyJ. R.DeaconS. H.BowersP. N.IzenbergL.Wade-WoolleyL.ParrilaR. (2012). Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25, 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5
17.
LeeJ. H.HuberJ. C.Jr. (2021). Evaluation of multiple imputation with large proportions of missing data: How much is too much?Iranian Journal of Public Health, 50(7), 1372–1380. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v50i7.6626
18.
LervågA.AukrustV. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02185.x
McMasterK. L.Van den BroekP.EspinC. A.WhiteM. J.RappD. N.KendeouP.Bohn-GettlerC. M.CarlsonS. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017
21.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). A nation’s report card.
22.
ParkerD. C.BurnsM. K. (2014). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.702047
23.
RobertsG.VaughnS.WanzekJ.FurmanG.MartinezL.SargentK. (2023). Promoting adolescents’ comprehension of text: A randomized control trial of its effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(5), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000794
24.
SalingerT. (2011). Addressing the “crisis” in adolescent literacy. American Institutes for Research.
25.
SalingerT.OsherD. (2018). Academic interventions—Use with care. In OsherD.MoroneyD.WilliamsonS. (Eds.), Creating safe, equitable, engaging schools: A comprehensive, evidence-based approach to supporting students (pp. 235–252). Harvard Education Press.
26.
SchistermanE. F.FaraggiD.ReiserB.HuJ. (2008). Youden Index and the optimal threshold for markers with mass at zero. Statistics in Medicine, 27(2), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2993
27.
ScholinS.BurnsM. K. (2012). Relationship between pre-intervention data and post-intervention reading fluency and growth: A meta-analysis of assessment data for individual students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21599
28.
StataCorp. (2021). Stata statistical software: Release 17. StataCorp LLC.
29.
StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.MofeseP. J.WeissB.FletcherJ. M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76, 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907600102
30.
StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.TrahanL. T.RadhikaR. R.MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M. (2015). Are child cognitive characteristics strong predictors of responses to intervention? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 395–429. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314555996
31.
SwansonE.HairrellA.KentS.CiulloS.WanzekJ. A.VaughnS. (2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131
32.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.VaughnS.FallA. M.RobertsG.HallC.MillerV. L. (2017). Middle school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below-average readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1072068
33.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA. M. (2015). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge among middle school students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 81(4), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563704
34.
SzadokierskiI.BurnsM. K.McComasJ. J. (2017). Predicting intervention effectiveness from reading accuracy and rate measures through the instructional hierarchy: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 46(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0013.V46-2
35.
TrapmanM.Van GelderenA.Van SteenselR.Van SchootenE.HulstijnJ. (2014). Linguistic knowledge, fluency and meta-cognitive knowledge as components of reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: Differences between monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1), S3–S21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01539.x
36.
VanDerHeydenA. M.CoddingR. S.MartinR. (2017). Relative value of common screening measures in mathematics. School Psychology Review, 46(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2017.12087608
37.
VaughnS.FallA. M.RobertsG.WanzekJ.SwansonE.MartinezL. R. (2019). Class percentage of students with reading difficulties on content knowledge and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775117
38.
VaughnS.MartinezL. R.WanzekJ.RobertsG.SwansonE.FallA. M. (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000069
39.
VaughnS.RobertsG.SwansonE. A.WanzekJ.FallA. M.Stillman-SpisakS. J. (2015). Improving middle-school students’ knowledge and comprehension in social studies: A replication. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9274-2
40.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A.RobertsG.WanzekJ.Stillman-SpisakS. J.SolisM.SimmonsD. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.039
41.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2024). Promoting adolescents’ comprehension of text: Efficacy and effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 45(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231190
42.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA. M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029156194
43.
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
44.
WeiH.CromwellA. M.McClartyK. L. (2016). Career readiness: An analysis of text complexity for occupational reading materials. Journal of Educational Research, 109(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.945149
45.
WhiteI. R.RoystonP.WoodA. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067
46.
WissingerD. R.TruckenmillerA. J.KonekA. E.CiulloS. (2023). The validity of two tests of silent reading fluency: A meta-analytic review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 40(2), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2175340
47.
WoodsA. D.Davis-KeanP.HalvorsonM.KingK. M.LoganJ. R.XuM.BainterS.BrownD.ClayJ. M.CruzR. A.ElsherifM. M.MahmoudM.Elsherif GerasimovaD.Joyal-DesmaraisK.MoreauD.NissenJ.SchmidtK.UzdavinesA.Van DusenB.VasilevM. (2021). Missing data and multiple imputation decision tree. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mdw
