This study examined the effects of an intensive reading intervention for students demonstrating minimal response to previous, less intensive intervention. Participants received intervention for 13 to 26 weeks in first grade. In second grade, students were screened and those meeting the benchmark (higher responders) did not receive further intervention, whereas those who did not meet benchmark (lower responders) received an additional 26 weeks of a more intensive intervention. Using a regression-discontinuity design, lower and higher responders were compared on several measures of reading. Significant findings for reading comprehension and word reading were demonstrated in favor of the lower responder group. No significant results were shown for reading fluency. Teachers' perspectives of the lower responders' academic competence were significantly lower than those of higher responders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
2.
BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.VermeulenK.OgierS.BrooksherR.ZookD. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 59–76.
3.
BlachmanB. A.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.ClonanS. M.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461.
4.
BlachmanB. A.TangelD. M.BallE. W.BlackR.McGrawC. K. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income, inner city children. Reading and Writing, 11, 239–273.
5.
BusA. G.van IjzendoornM. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.
6.
CavanaughC. L.KimA.WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2004). Kindergarten reading interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2(1), 9–21.
7.
CrawfordL.TindalG.StieberS. (2001). Using oral reading rate to predict student performance on statewide achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 7, 303–323.
8.
DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.
9.
DiPernaJ. C.ElliottS. N. (1999). Development and validation of the academic competence evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(3), 207–225.
10.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
ElliottS. N.DiPernaJ. C.MrochA. A.LangS. C. (2004). Prevalence and patterns of academic enabling behaviors: An analysis of teachers' and students' ratings for a national sample of students. School Psychology Review, 33, 302–309.
12.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
13.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
14.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to academic diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
15.
GaskinsR. W.GaskinsJ. C.GaskinsI. (1992). Using what you know to figure out what you don't know: An analogy approach to decoding. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 197–221.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (Eds.). (2002a). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
17.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002b). DIBELS oral reading fluency passages for first through third grades (Tech. Rep. No. 10). Eugene: University of Oregon.
18.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD.Kame'enuiE.KaminskiR. A.WallinJ. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade (Tech. Rep. No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.
19.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
20.
HasbrouckJ. E.IhnotC.RogersG. H. (1999). “Read Naturally”: A strategy to increase oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 27–38.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (2004).
22.
LepolaJ.PoskipartaE.LaakkonenE.NiemiP. (2005). Development of and relationship between phonological and motivational processes and naming speed in predicting word recognition in Grade 1. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 367–399.
23.
MaleckiC. K.ElliottS. N. (2002). Children's social behaviors as predictors of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 1–23.
24.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
25.
MorganP. L.FuchsD. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between children's reading skills and reading motivation?. Exceptional Children, 73, 165–183.
26.
O'ConnorR. E.FulmerD.HartyK. R.BellK. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 440–445.
27.
O'ShaughnessyT. E.SwansonH. L. (2000). A comparison of two reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 257–277.
28.
PressleyM.Wharton-McDonaldR. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26, 448–466.
29.
RashotteC. A.MacPheeK.TorgesenJ. K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
30.
SpeeceD. L. (2005). Hitting the moving target known as reading development: Some thoughts on screening first-grade children for secondary interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 437–493.
31.
SpeeceD. L.CaseL. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735–749.
32.
StephensT. M. (1981). Technical information: Social behavior assessment. Columbus, OH: Cedars Press.
33.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K. S.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
34.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayT. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
35.
TrochimW. M. K. (1984). Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A.JenkinsJ. R. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 227–241.
38.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
39.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.FletcherJ. M. (2007). Multiple tiers of intervention: A framework for prevention and identification of students with reading/learning disabilities. In TaylorB. M.YsseldykeJ. (Eds.), Educational interventions for struggling readers (pp. 173–196). New York: Teacher's College Press.
40.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WoodruffA. L.Linan-ThompsonS. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In HaagerD. H.VaughnS.KlingnerJ. K. (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
41.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
42.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SmallS.FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169.
43.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561.
44.
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
45.
WoodcockR. W.JohnsonM. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Chicago: Riverside.
