Two studies examined response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for two cohorts of first-grade students demonstrating low levels of reading after previous intervention. Students were assigned to one of three groups that received (a) a single dose of intervention, (b) a double dose of intervention, or (c) no intervention. Examination of individual student response to intervention indicated that more students in the treatment groups demonstrated accelerated learning over time than students in the comparison condition. Students' responses to the single-dose and double-dose interventions were similar over time. Students in all conditions demonstrated particular difficulties with gains in reading fluency. Implications for future research and practice within response to intervention models are provided.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300-316.
2.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective?: An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 441-431.
3.
Barnett, D.W., Daly, E.J., Jones, K.M., & Lentz, F.E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special service decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity . Journal of Special Education, 38, 66-79.
4.
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Vermeulen, K., Ogier, S., Brooksher, R., Zook, D., et al. (2002). Comparison of faster and slower responders to early intervention in reading: Differentiating features of their language profiles. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 59-76.
5.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading Next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report toCarnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
9.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Moody, S.W. (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, 605-619.
10.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
11.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157-171.
12.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
13.
Hammill, D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70, 453-468.
14.
Howell, D.C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: PWS-Kent.
15.
Ikeda, M.J., Tilly, W.D., III, Stumme, J., Volmer, L., & Allison, R. (1996). Agency-wide implementation of problem solving consultation: Foundations, current implementation, and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 228-243.
Lovett, M., Borden, L., DeLuca, T., Lacarenza, L., Benson, N., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically- and strategy-based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 805-822.
18.
Lovett, M.W., Steinbach, K.A., & Frijters, J.C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: A double-deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 334-358.
19.
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(3), 186-200.
20.
Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.
21.
McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445-463.
22.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2005). National assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/natreadinginfo.asp
23.
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. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
24.
Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Available from http://www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/
25.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis in intervention outcomesJournal of Learning Disabilities , 32, 504-532.
27.
Swanson, H.L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D.M., & Hammill, D.D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407-440.
28.
Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55-64.
29.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.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, 33-58.
30.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161-185.
31.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.
32.
Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A., Peyton, J.A., & Jenkins, J.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.
33.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114.
34.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Elbaum, B., Wanzek, J., Rodriguez, K.T., Cavanaugh, C.L. et al. (2004). Centers for implementing K-3 behavior and reading intervention models preventing reading difficulties: A three-tiered intervention model. Unpublished report, University of Texas Center for Reading andLanguage Arts.
35.
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.
36.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D.P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S.A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 301-315.
37.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Murray, C.S., Woodruff, T., Wanzek, J., Scammacca, N., et al. (in press). High and low responders to early reading intervention: Response to interventionExceptional Children.
38.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A.L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). A three-tier model for preventing reading difficulties and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. H. Haager , S. Vaughn, & J. K. Klingner (Eds), Validated reading practices for three tiers of intervention (pp. 11-27). Baltimore: Brookes.
39.
Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. (2002). The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573-635.
40.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (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.
41.
Wise, B.W., Ring, J., & Olson, R.K. (1999). Training phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 271-304.
42.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415-438.
43.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
