Researchers have noted a nonlinear association between reading instruction dosage (i.e., hours of instruction) and reading outcomes for Grade K–3 students with reading difficulties (K–3 SWRD). In this article, we propose a nonlinear meta-analysis as a method to identify both the maximum effect size and optimal dosage of reading interventions for K–3 SWRD using 26 peer-reviewed studies including 186 effect sizes. Results suggested the effect sizes followed a concave parabolic shape, such that increasing dosage improved intervention effects until 39.92 hours of instruction (dmax = 0.77), after which the intervention effects declined. Moderator analyses found that maximum intervention effects on fluency outcomes were significantly larger (dmax = 1.34) than the overall maximum effect size. Also, when students received 1:1 instruction, the dosage response curve displayed a different functional form than the concave parabolic shape, showing the effect increased indefinitely after approximately 16.8 hours of instruction. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.WanzekJ.GreulichL.SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K. (2014). To wait in Tier 1 or intervene immediately: A randomized experiment examining first-grade response to intervention in reading. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914532234
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050501
3.
Al OtaibaS.SchatschneiderC.SilvermanE. (2005). Tutor-assisted intensive learning strategies in kindergarten: How much is enough?Exceptionality, 13(4), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1304_2
4.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
5.
ApelK.BrimoD.DiehmE.ApelL. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first-and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/12-0042)
6.
AustinC. R.VaughnS.McClellandA. M. (2017). Intensive reading interventions for inadequate responders in grades K–3: A synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717714446
7.
BauerD. J.CaiL. (2009). Consequences of unmodeled nonlinear effects in multilevel models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998607310504
BelzakW. C.BauerD. J. (2019). Interaction effects may actually be nonlinear effects in disguise: A review of the problem and potential solutions. Addictive Behaviors, 94, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.09.018
10.
Brown WaescheJ. S.SchatschneiderC.ManerJ. K.AhmedY.WagnerR. K. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410392048
11.
CarlsonK. D.SchmidtF. L. (1999). Impact of experimental design on effect size: Findings from the research literature on training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.851
12.
*CaseL. P.SpeeceD.SilvermanR.RitcheyK.SchatschneiderC.CooperD.MontanaroE.JacobsD. (2010). Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(5), 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355475
13.
ChallJ. S. (1996). American reading achievement: Should we worry?Research in the Teaching of English, 30(3), 303–310. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171366
14.
ChallJ. S.JacobsV. A. (1983). Writing and reading in the elementary grades: Developmental trends among low SES children. Language Arts, 60(5), 617–626. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41961511
15.
ChoE.CapinP.RobertsG.RobertsG.VaughnS. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 982–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000332
16.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003
17.
*CoyneM. D.LittleM.RawlinsonD.SimmonsD.KwokO.KimM.SimmonsL.Hagan-BurkeS.CivetelliC. (2013). Replicating the impact of a supplemental beginning reading intervention: The role of instructional context. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.706694
18.
CudeckR.du ToitS. H. C. (2002). A version of quadratic regression with interpretable parameters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3704_04
19.
DentonC. A.CirinoP. T.BarthA. E.RomainM.VaughnS.WexlerJ.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M. (2011). An experimental study of scheduling and duration of “Tier 2” first-grade reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.530127
20.
*DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.TaylorW. P.BarthA. E.VaughnS. (2014). An experimental evaluation of guided reading and explicit interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.906010
21.
*DentonC. A.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.BarthA. E.VaughnS.FrancisD. J. (2013). Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032581
22.
DuffD.TomblinJ. B.CattsH. (2015). The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), 853–864. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0310
23.
DumasD. G.McNeishD. M. (2017). Dynamic measurement modeling: Using nonlinear growth models to estimate student learning capacity. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17725747
24.
DumasD. G.McNeishD. M. (2018). Increasing the consequential validity of reading assessment using dynamic measurement modeling. Educational Researcher, 47(9), 612–614. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18797621
25.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.PachanM. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.WillowsD. M.SchusterB. V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
28.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.Tejero HughesM.Watson MoodyS. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605
29.
*FienH.SantoroL.BakerS. K.ParkY.ChardD. J.WilliamsS.HariaP. (2011). Enhancing teacher read alouds with small-group vocabulary instruction for students with low vocabulary in first-grade classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087720
FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.DentonC. A.CirinoP. T.FrancisD. J.VaughnS. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087725
32.
FoormanB.BeylerN.BorradaileK.CoyneM.DentonC. A.DiminoJ.FurgesonJ.HayesL.HenkeJ.JusticeL.KeatingB.LewisW.SattarS.StrekeA.WagnerR.WisselS. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/practiceGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_040717.pdf
33.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In BlachmanB. A. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243–264). Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
35.
FuchsD.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.BryantJ.DavisG. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9
36.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514558337
37.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800301
38.
*FuchsD.KearnsD. M.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K.PattonS.PengP.ComptonD. L. (2019). Using moderator analysis to identify the first-grade children who benefit more and less from a reading comprehension program: A step toward aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918802801
39.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900503
40.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/docs/practiceguide/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
41.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.BarqueroL. A.ChoE. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.45
42.
*GillamS. L.OlszewskiA.FargoJ.GillamR. B. (2014). Classroom-based narrative and vocabulary instruction: Results of an early-stage, nonrandomized comparison study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(3), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0008
43.
*GoodJ. E.LanceD. M.RaineyJ. (2015). The effects of morphological awareness training on reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 36(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740114548917
GrantA.GottardoA.GevaE. (2011). Reading in English as a first or second language: The case of Grade 3 Spanish, Portuguese, and English speakers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00327.x
46.
HallM. S.BurnsM. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66(February), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002
47.
HarrisonJ. R.SoaresD. A.RudzinskiS.JohnsonR. (2019). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorders and classroom-based interventions: Evidence-based status, effectiveness, and moderators of effects in single-case design research. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 569–611. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319857038
48.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2010). Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.498290
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00156
*KerinsM. R.TrotterD.SchoenbrodtL. (2010). Effects of a Tier 2 intervention on literacy measures: Lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659009349985
LamE. A.McMasterK. L. (2014). Predictors of responsiveness to early literacy intervention: A 10-year update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714529772
56.
*LaneH. B.PullenP. C.HudsonR. F.KonoldT. R. (2009). Identifying essential instructional components of literacy tutoring for struggling beginning readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070902875173
57.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002275
58.
LiberatiA.AltmanD. G.TetzlaffJ.MulrowC.GøtzscheP. C.IoannidisJ. P. A.ClarkeM.DevereauxP. J.KleijnenJ.MoherD. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
59.
LipkaO.LesauxN. K.SiegelL. S. (2006). Retrospective analyses of the reading development of Grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390040901
60.
LubinskiD.HumphreysL. G. (1990). Assessing spurious “moderator effects”: Illustrated substantively with the hypothesized (“synergistic”) relation between spatial and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.385
61.
MacCallumR. C.MarC. M. (1995). Distinguishing between moderator and quadratic effects in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.405
62.
MagginD. M.TalbottE.Van AckerE. Y.KummS. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 42(2), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688653
63.
Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2010). Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344534
64.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
65.
McNeishD. (2016). Estimation methods for mixed logistic models with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(6), 790–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1236237
66.
*MorrisR. D.LovettM. W.WolfM.SevcikR. A.SteinbachK. A.FrijtersJ. C.ShapiroM. B. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355472
67.
MorrisS. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1094428106291059
68.
MustianK. M.AlfanoC. M.HecklerC.KlecknerA. S.KlecknerI. R.LeachC. R.MohrD.PaleshO. G.PepponeL. J.PiperB. F.ScarpatoJ.SmithT.SprodL. K.MillerS. M. (2017). Comparison of pharmaceutical, psychological, and exercise treatments for cancer-related fatigue: A meta-analysis. JAMA Oncology, 3(7), 961–968. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6914
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Executive summary: Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Institute for Literacy. http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPSummary.pdf
71.
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: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
72.
NelsonR. J.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00080
73.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK. M.BeachK. D.SanchezV.FlynnL. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year Response to Intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12013
74.
OgungbenroK.DokoumetzidisA.AaronsL. (2009). Application of optimal design methodologies in clinical pharmacology experiments. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 8(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.354
75.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.
76.
ProctorC. P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246
77.
*PullenP.LaneH. (2014). Teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters and word reading skill development of struggling first grade students. Exceptionality, 22(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2014.865952
78.
RobertsG. J.CapinP.RobertsG.MiciakJ.QuinnJ. M.VaughnS. (2018). Effects of an after-school reading intervention for Grade 3–5 struggling readers. Remedial and Special Education, 39(3), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517750818
79.
RobertsG. J.ChoE.GarwoodJ. D.GobleG. H.RobertsonT.HodgesA. (2020). Reading interventions for students with reading and behavioral difficulties: A meta-analysis and evaluation of co-occurring difficulties. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 17–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09485-1
80.
RobertsG. J.SolisM.ChanceB. (2019). Embedding self-regulation into reading interventions to support reading and behavior outcomes. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(2), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919874306
81.
SamsonJ. F.LesauxN. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326221
82.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
83.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG. J.ChoE.WilliamsK. J.RobertsG.VaughnS. R.CarrollM. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in Grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942
84.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.CarlsonC. D.FoormanB. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265
85.
SeabrookR.BrownG. D. A.SolityJ. E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1066
86.
SheinerL. B.SteimerJ.-L. (2000). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling in drug development. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 40, 67–95. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.40.1.67
87.
*SimmonsD. C.CoyneM.Hagan-BurkeS.KwokO.-M.SimmonsL.JohnsonC.ZouY.TaylorA.Lentini McalenneyA.RubyM.CrevecoeurY. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts: A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440291107700204
88.
*SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J.HarnB.CoyneM. D.StooolmillerM.SantoraL. E.SmithS. B.BeckC. T.KaufmanN. K. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400040401
89.
SmithA. F. M.CookD. G. (1980). Straight lines with a change-point: A Bayesian analysis of some renal transplant data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C, 29(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/2986304
90.
*SolariE.DentonC.PetscherY.HaringC. (2018). Examining the effects and feasibility of a teacher-implemented Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention in word reading, fluency, and comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(2), 163–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1375582
91.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-204
92.
StanovichK. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. Guilford Press.
93.
SullivanA. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304
94.
*SwansonL.O’ConnorR. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(6), 548–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338742
95.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
96.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.HerronJ.LindamoodP. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0032-y
97.
TosteJ. R.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.ChoE.BarqueroL. A.BoutonB. D. (2014). Understanding unresponsiveness to Tier 2 reading intervention: Exploring the classification and profiles of adequate and inadequate responders in first grade. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(4), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713518336
98.
UkrainetzT. A.RossC. L.HarmH. M. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners who are at risk for reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0077)
99.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2008). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A replication and comparison of instructional groupings. Reading and Writing, 21(9), 929–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9119-9
100.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2009). Supplemental fluency intervention and determinants of reading outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(5), 383–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903162894
101.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019639
102.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: How language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(6), 471–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.501091
103.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.NelsonJ. R. (2015). Effectiveness of supplemental kindergarten vocabulary instruction for English learners: A randomized study of immediate and longer-term effects of two approaches. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 490–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1033120
104.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006a). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.508
105.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006b). Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270060601
106.
*VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.TudorS. (2007). Effectiveness of paraeducator-supplemented individual instruction: Beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 508–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400060301
107.
VaughnS.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20481
108.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900401
109.
VaughnS.SwansonE. A. (2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598781
110.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.RobertsG. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531907.pdf
111.
WanzekJ.StevensE. A.WilliamsK. J.ScammaccaN.VaughnS.SargentK. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110
112.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087917
113.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313426
114.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
115.
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
116.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20139
117.
*YoungC.DurhamP.Rosenbaum-MartinezC. (2018). A stacked approach to reading intervention: Increasing 2nd- and 3rd-graders’ independent reading levels with an intervention program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1418771
118.
*YoungC.PearceD.GomezJ.ChristensenR.PletcherB.FlemingK. (2018). Read two impress and the neurological impress method: Effects on elementary students’ reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude. Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1393650
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
