This article reports a synthesis of intervention studies conducted between 1994 and 2004 with older students (Grades 6–12) with reading difficulties. Interventions addressing decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were included if they measured the effects on reading comprehension. Twenty-nine studies were located and synthesized. Thirteen studies met criteria for a meta-analysis, yielding an effect size (ES) of 0.89 for the weighted average of the difference in comprehension outcomes between treatment and comparison students. Word-level interventions were associated with ES = 0.34 in comprehension outcomes between treatment and comparison students. Implications for comprehension instruction for older struggling readers are described.
This meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4 through 12 published between 1980 and 2011. It updates Scammacca et al.’s analysis of studies published between 1980 and 2004. The combined corpus of 82 study-wise effect sizes was meta-analyzed to determine (a) the overall effectiveness of reading interventions studied over the past 30 years, (b) how the magnitude of the effect varies based on student, intervention, and research design characteristics, and (c) what differences in effectiveness exist between more recent interventions and older ones. The analysis yielded a mean effect of 0.49, considerably smaller than the 0.95 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effect for standardized measures was 0.21, also much smaller than the 0.42 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effects for reading comprehension measures were similarly diminished. Results indicated that the mean effects for the 1980–2004 and 2005–2011 groups of studies were different to a statistically significant degree. The decline in effect sizes over time is attributed at least in part to increased use of standardized measures, more rigorous and complex research designs, differences in participant characteristics, and improvements in the school’s “business-as-usual” instruction that often serves as the comparison condition in intervention studies.
We address the advantages and challenges of service delivery models based on student response to intervention (RTI) for preventing and remediating academic difficulties and as data sources for identification for special education services. The primary goal of RTI models is improved academic and behavioral outcomes for all students. We review evidence for the processes underlying RTI, including screening and progress monitoring assessments, evidence-based interventions, and schoolwide coordination of multitiered instruction. We also discuss the secondary goal of RTI, which is to provide data for identification of learning disabilities (LDs). Incorporating instructional response into identification represents a controversial shift away from discrepancies in cognitive skills that have traditionally been a primary basis for LD identification. RTI processes potentially integrate general and special education and suggest new directions for research and public policy related to LDs, but the scaling issues in schools are significant and more research is needed on the use of RTI data for identification.
This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a content acquisition and reading comprehension treatment implemented by eighth‐grade social studies teachers. Using a within‐teacher design, the eighth‐grade teachers’ social studies classes were randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions. Teachers (n = 5) taught the same instructional content to both treatment and comparison classes, but the treatment classes used instructional practices focused on teaching essential words, text as a source for reading and discussion, and team‐based learning approaches. Students in the treatment conditions (n = 261) scored statistically higher than students in the comparison conditions (n = 158) on all three outcomes: content acquisition (ES = 0.17), content reading comprehension (ES = 0.29), and standardized reading comprehension (ES = 0.20). Findings are interpreted as demonstrating support for the treatment in improving both knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension within content area instruction.
This synthesis extends a report of research on extensive interventions in kinder-garten through third grade (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007) to students in Grades 4 through 12, recognizing that many of the same questions about the effectiveness of reading interventions with younger students are important to address with older students, including (a) how effective are extensive interventions in improving reading outcomes for older students with reading difficulties or disabilities and (b) what features of extensive interventions (e.g., group size, duration, grade level) are associated with improved outcomes. Nineteen studies were synthesized. Ten studies met criteria for a meta-analysis, reporting on 22 distinct treatment/comparison differences. Mean effect sizes ranged from 0.10 to 0.16 for comprehension, word reading, word reading fluency, reading fluency, and spelling outcomes. No significant differences in student outcomes were noted among studies related to instructional group size, relative number of hours of intervention, or grade level of intervention.
The authors conducted an experimental study to examine the effects of collaborative strategic reading and metacognitive strategic learning on the reading comprehension of students in seventh-and eighth-grade English/ language arts classes in two sites (Texas, Colorado) and in three school districts. Students were randomly assigned to classes and then classes were randomly assigned to treatment or business-as-usual comparison groups. If a teacher had an uneven number of classes, we assigned extra classes to treatment. The total number of classes randomized was 61, with 34 treatment and 27 comparison. Treatment students received a multicomponent reading comprehension instruction (collaborative strategic reading) from their English/language arts/reading teachers that included teaching students to apply comprehension strategies in collaborative groups for 18 weeks, with approximately two sessions per week. Findings indicated significant differences in favor of the treatment students on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test but not on reading fluency.
A synthesis of the extant research on reading interventions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities in fourth and fifth grade (ages 9-11) is presented. Thirteen studies with treatment/ comparison study designs and eleven single group or single subject studies were located and synthesized. Findings from the 24 studies revealed high effects for comprehension interventions on researcher-developed comprehension measures. Word recognition interventions yielded small to moderate effects on a range of reading outcomes. Few studies were located implementing vocabulary and multi-component interventions.
This meta-analysis extends previous work on extensive Tier 3 type reading interventions (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Wanzek et al., 2013) to Tier 2 type interventions by examining a non-overlapping set of studies addressing the effects of less extensive reading interventions for students with or at risk for reading difficulties in Grades K-3. We examined the overall effects of these interventions on students’ foundational skills, language, and comprehension as well as the intervention features that may be associated with improved outcomes. We conducted four meta-analyses on 72 studies to examine effects on (1) standardized foundational skill measures (mean ES = 0.54), (2) not-standardized foundational skill measures (mean ES = 0.62), (3) standardized language/comprehension measures (mean ES = 0.36), and (4) not-standardized language/comprehension measures (mean ES = 1.02). There were no differences in effects related to intervention type, instructional group size, grade level, intervention implementer, or the number of intervention hours.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.