The ability to read fluently is a critical skill that allows the reader to concentrate on the meaning of the text. It also can contribute to a successful reading experience. However, students with physical disabilities may have difficulty reading fluently due to any number of functional, psychosocial, or environmental factors that can accompany a physical disability. Although instructional methods to increase reading fluency do exist, the research investigating these methods is typically done with other populations of students. This study employed a changing criterion design to examine the use of a treatment package consisting of repeated reading with computer modeling, error correction, and performance feedback on improving reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension with students with cerebral palsy. An analysis of the data demonstrated that all students were able to increase reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension from first to final readings within a session (positive nontransfer effects). Analysis of the percentage of nonoverlapping data revealed that three of the four students also showed slight increases in reading fluency on novel passages (positive transfer effects).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
2.
ArcherA. L.GleasonM. M.VachonV. L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skill for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 89–102.
3.
BarbettaP. M.HeronT. E. (1993). Effects of active student response during error correction on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of sight words by students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 111–119.
4.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
5.
ClarfieldJ.StonerG. (2005). Research brief: The effects of computerized reading instruction on the academic performance of students identified with ADHD. School Psychology Review, 34, 246–254.
CowieR.Douglas-CowieE.WichmannA. (2002). Prosodic characteristics of skilled reading: Fluency and expressiveness in 8–10-year-old readers. Language and Speech, 45, 47–82.
8.
DalyE. J.MurdochA.LillensteinL.WebberL.LentzF. E. (2002). An examination of methods for testing treatments: Conducting brief experimental analyses of the effects of instructional components on oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 288–315.
9.
HackerD. J. (2004). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 755–779). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
10.
HasbrouckJ. (2006). Read Naturally Placement Book. Saint Paul, MN: Read Naturally, Inc.
11.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. (2005). Oral Reading Fluency: 90 Years of Measurement (Tech. Report No. 33). Eugene: University of Oregon, College of Education, Behavioral Research and Teaching.
12.
HellerK. W. (2009). Learning and behavioral characteristics of students with physical, health, or multiple disabilities. In HellerK. W.ForneyP. E.AlbertoP. A.BestS. J.SwartzmanM. N. (Eds.), Understanding Physical, Health, and Multiple Disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 18–34). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
13.
HellerK. W.Coleman-MartinM. B. (2007). Strategies for promoting literacy for students who have physical disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28, 69–72.
14.
HellerK. W.RupertJ. H.Coleman-MartinM. B.MezeiP.CalhoonM. B. (2007). Reading fluency instruction with students with physical disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, 25, 13–32.
15.
HomanS. P.KlesiusJ. P.HiteC. (1993). Effects of repeated reading and nonrepetitive strategies on students' fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 94–99.
KoenigA. J.LaytonC. A. (1998). Increasing Reading Fluency in Elementary Students with Low Vision through Repeated Readings. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92(5), 276–292.
18.
KuhnM. R.StahlS. (2004). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 412–453). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
19.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
20.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 278–286.
21.
MontaliJ.LewandowskiL. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 271–279.
22.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (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. (Vol. NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
23.
Nes FerraraS. L. (2005). Reading fluency and self-efficacy: A case study. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 52, 215–231.
24.
PattilloS. T.HellerK. W.SmithM. (2003). The impact of a modified repeated-reading strategy paired with optical character recognition on the reading rates of students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 98, 28–46.
25.
SamuelsS. J. (1997). The method of repeated reading. The Reading Teacher, 50, 376–381.
26.
SamuelsS. J. (2004). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In RuddellR. B.UnrauN. J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1127–1148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
27.
SchwanenflugelP. J.HamiltonA. M.KuhnM. R.WisenbakerJ. M.StahlS. A. (1996). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 119–129.
28.
SteventonC. E.FredrickL. D. (2003). The effects of repeated readings on student performance in the corrective reading program. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 17–27.
29.
StoutT. W. (1997). An investigation of the effects of a repeated reading intervention on the fluency and comprehension of students with language-learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
30.
SwainK. D.AllinderR. M. (1996). The effects of repeated reading on two types of CBM: Computer maze and oral reading with second-grade students with learning disabilities. Diagnostique, 21(2), 51–66.
31.
TherrienW. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.
32.
TorgesenJ. K. (1986). Computers and cognition in reading: A focus on decoding fluency. Exceptional Children, 53, 157–162.
