Conventional methods for producing test norms are often plagued with “jumps” or “gaps” (i.e., discontinuities) in norm tables and low confidence for assessing extreme scores. We propose a new approach for producing continuous test norms to address these problems that also has the added advantage of not requiring assumptions about the distribution of the raw data: Norm values are established from raw data by modeling the latter ones as a function of both percentile scores and an explanatory variable (e.g., age). The proposed method appears to minimize bias arising from sampling and measurement error, while handling marked deviations from normality—such as are commonplace in clinical samples. In addition to step-by-step instructions in how to apply this method, we demonstrate its advantages over conventional discrete norming procedures using norming data from two different psychometric tests, employing either age norms ( N = 3,555) or grade norms ( N = 1,400).

Much is known about short-term--but very little about the long-term--effects of reading interventions. To rectify this, a detailed analysis of follow-up effects as a function of intervention, sample, and methodological variables was conducted. A total of 71 intervention-control groups were selected (N = 8,161 at posttest) from studies reporting posttest and follow-up data (M = 11.17 months) for previously established reading interventions. The posttest effect sizes indicated effects (dw = 0.37) that decreased to follow-up (dw = 0.22). Overall, comprehension and phonemic awareness interventions showed good maintenance of effect that transferred to nontargeted skills, whereas phonics and fluency interventions, and those for preschool and kindergarten children, tended not to. Several methodological features also related to effect sizes at follow-up, namely experimental design and dosage, and sample attrition, risk status, and gender balance.

Despite impressive advances in the science of reading intervention, how to best help at-risk readers remains a point of contention. Because reading represents the synthesis of background factors and language and reading skills-all of which develop with age and experience-this meta-analysis investigated whether development (as approximated by grade) and intervention modality are key moderators of intervention effect size for disadvantaged readers. Eighty-five experimental or quasi-experimental studies with 116 treatment-control groups (N = 7,522) were selected from preschool to Grade 7. Analyses accounted for intervention length, instructor-to-student ratio, measure design, experimental design, attrition, intervention language, and publication bias. Between-group comparisons suggested that effect sizes were larger for older students, comprehension interventions, quasi-experimental studies, and samples at greater risk. In hierarchical regression analyses, intervention modality alone did not explain additional variance in effect size; however, when interacting with grade, intervention modality did explain additional variance. Phonics interventions were more effective until Grade 1, after which comprehension and mixed interventions, in particular, tended to be associated with greater effect sizes. These results highlight the importance of a developmental understanding of reading remediation.

This research investigated the link between oral narrative and reading skills in the first 3 years of reading instruction. Study 1 consisted of 61 children (M = 6:1 years) who had experienced 1 year of reading instruction on average. Children's story retelling was scored for memory and narrative quality. The quality of children's narratives correlated positively with their reading skill at this age, but narrative quality did not uniquely predict their reading skill 1 year later. Study 2 consisted of 39 children (M = 7:0 years) who had experienced 2 years of reading instruction on average. At this age, the quality of children's narratives uniquely predicted their reading skill concurrently and 1 year later, even after controlling for their receptive vocabulary and early decoding. These findings have implications for theories of the oral language foundations of reading and for assessment in the early years of reading instruction.

No abstract