Children who fail to become fluent readers by the end of the primary grades are likely to achieve below same-age peers throughout their school careers. With growing use of curriculum-based measures (CBMs), it is easier to identify those students who are achieving below same-age peers. Moreover, a process of conducting individualized assessment and intervention aimed at improving achievement could be developed within a response to intervention (RTI) model. For example, functional analysis procedures can be used to identify effective reading interventions for students achieving below expectations. The present study employed a multielement design to analyze the effects of various supplemental reading interventions on the oral reading fluency rates of 3 third-grade children. Differential effects were shown across conditions, leading to an individualized intervention recommendation for all participants. Generalized effects were shown over time in CBMs for all participants. Results are discussed in terms of the treatment utility of functional reading analysis for children who exhibit below-expected levels of reading achievement on CMBs and in terms of an RTI approach to identification and service provision for struggling readers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention. Remedial & SpecialEducation , 23, 300—316.
2.
Bonfiglio, C.M., Daly, E.J., III, Martens, B.K., Lin, H.-L.R., & Corsaut, S. (2004). An experimental analysis of reading interventions: Generalization across instructional strategies, time, and passages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 111—114.
3.
Capizzi, A.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 159—174.
4.
Christ, T.J., Burns, M.K., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communiqué, 34, 5—9. Available at www.nasponline.org
5.
Daly, E.J., III, Martens, B.K., Dool, E.J., & Hintze, J.M. (1998). Using brief functional analysis to select interventions for oral reading. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 203—218.
6.
Daly, E.J., III, Martens, B.K., Hamler, K.R., Dool, E.J., & Eckert, T.L. (1999). A brief experimental analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 83—94.
7.
Daly, E.J., III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554—575.
8.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219—232.
9.
Deno, S.L. (2002). Problem-solving as “best practice.” In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV : Volume 1 (pp. 37—56). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
10.
Dion, E., Morgan, P., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2004). The promise and limitations of reading instruction in the mainstream: The need for a multi-level approach. Exceptionality , 12, 163—173.
11.
Duhon, G.J., Noell, G.H., Witt, J.C., Freeland, J.T., Dufrene, B.A., & Gilbertson, D.N. (2004). Identifying academic skills and performance deficits: The experimental analysis of brief assessments of academic skills. School Psychology Review, 33, 429—443.
12.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daisey, D.M., & Scarola, M.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—474.
13.
Eckert, T.L., Ardoin, S.P., Daly, E.J., III, & Martens, B.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.
14.
Edformation, Inc. (2005). Grade 3 R-CBM oral reading fluency passages for progress monitoring. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from www.edformation.com
15.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit model of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3—17.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 64—84.
17.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency. In R. H. Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS; 6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from http://dibels.uoregon.edu
18.
Hintze, J.M., & Christ, T.J. (2004). Examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review , 33, 204—217.
19.
Hintze, J.M., & Silberglitt, B. (in press). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing . School Psychology Review.
20.
Howe, K.B., Scierka, B.J., Gibbons, K.A., & Silberglitt, B. (2003). A school-wide organization system for raising reading achievement using general outcome measures and evidence-based instruction: One education district's experience. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 59—72.
21.
Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (2004).
22.
Jones, K., & Wickstrom, K. (2002). Done in sixty seconds: Further analysis of the brief assessment model for academic problems. School Psychology Review, 31, 554—568.
23.
Juel, C., & Leavell, J.A. (1988). Retention and non-retention of at-risk readers in first grade and their subsequent reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 571—580.
24.
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3—21.
25.
Madelaine, A., & Wheldall, K. (1999). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: A critical review. International Journal of DisabilityDevelopment and Education, 46, 71—85.
26.
Marston, D., Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decision making with high-incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187—200.
27.
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R.W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement [Examiner's manual]. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
28.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2005). Reading performance of students in grades 4 and 8. Retrieved February 5, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section2/table.asp?tableID=243
29.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (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 Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. ( 2002).
31.
Noell, G.H., Freeland, J.T., Witt, J.C., & Gansle, K.A. (2001). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual children. Journal of School Psychology , 39, 335—355.
32.
Noell, G.H., Gansle, K.A., Witt, J.C., Whitmarsh, E.L., Freeman, J.T., LaFleur, L.H., et al. (1998). Effects of contingent reward and instruction on oral reading performance at differing levels of passage difficulty. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 31, 659—663.
33.
Shinn, M.R., & Shinn, M.M. (2002). AIMSweb Training Workbook: Administration and Scoring of Reading Curriculum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) for Use in General Outcome Measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
34.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J.M. (in press). Formative assessment using oral reading fluency cut scores to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
35.
Speece, D.L., Case, L.P., & Molloy, D.E. (2003). The validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557—582.
36.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33—53, 78.
37.
VanAuken, T., Chafouleas, S.M., Bradley, T.A., & Martens, B.K. (2002). Using brief experimental analysis to select oral reading interventions: An investigation of treatment utility. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 11, 165—181.
38.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children , 69, 391—409.
