Matching Interventions to Reading Needs: A Case for Differentiation

Jones, Jill S.; Conradi, Kristin; Amendum, Steven J.

doi:10.1002/trtr.1513

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The truth is, most students with RDs experience both code‐ and language‐based difficulties. In separate studies conducted with third graders (Jones et al, 2016) and eighth graders (Cirino et al, 2013), more than 85% of students with reading comprehension difficulties also had difficulties with accurate or fluent word reading. Similarly, most students who have word RDs also have difficulties with vocabulary knowledge (Clemens et al, 2017) and broader listening comprehension (Capin et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Hall

Dahl-Leonard

Cho

et al. 2022

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis included experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K-5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below normreferenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm-referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < .001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < .01), we used meta-regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/ spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = .040 and p = .024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = −0.080).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Hall

Dahl-Leonard

Cho

et al. 2022

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-Speed of visual word decoding (Garcia & Cain, 2014) -Vocabulary knowledge (Dixon, LeFevre, & Twilley, 1988) -Rapid naming of letters or numbers (Arnell, Joanisse, Klein, Busseri, & Tannock, 2009;Kasperski, Shany, & Katzir, 2016;Kirby, Georgiou, Martinussen, & Parrila, 2010;Savage, & Frederickson, 2005) -Letter, name, and word matching (Stroud, 1945) -Short-term memory span (Naveh-Benjamin & Ayres, 1986) -Working memory span (Baddeley, Logie, Nimmo-Smith, & Brereton,1985;Perfetti, 1985) -Metacognitive knowledge (knowing when your text understanding is good enough for your reading goal; Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016;Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002) -Number of book authors known (Choi, Lowder, Ferreira, & Henderson, 2015;Martin-Chang & Gould, 2008) -Amount of reading relative to peers (Choi et al, 2015) -Auditory word recognition (Breznitz & Berman, 2003) -Speech rate (Bosshardt & Fransen, 1996) -Spoken text comprehension (Hirai, 1999) -Visual acuity (Aberson and Bouwhuis, 1997)…”

Section: Decrease Of Reading Rate In Old Agementioning

confidence: 99%

How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate

Brysbaert

2019

Journal of Memory and Language

255

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

had a reading rate of 3.9 words per second (234 wpm), the latter a rate of 7.3 words per second (438 wpm). Unfortunately, no information was given about how reading rate had been established. This encouraged Huey (1901) to reassess the issue. He selected 11 pages from an interesting novel, each containing 405 words, which presented no peculiar difficulties to the reader. Twenty university students were asked to read one page at a time while Huey measured the time with a stopwatch. There were 10 conditions. One was normal silent reading ("the way you like to read"). This rate was assessed twice. Another condition was to read silently as fast as possible, while still being able to follow the story line. Two other conditions of interest were reading aloud at a normal pace and at a maximal pace. 1 Huey reported reading rates of 5.35 and 5.91 words per second for silent normal reading (321 and 355 wpm), 8.21 words per second for silent maximal reading (493 wpm), 3.55 words per second for normal reading aloud (213 wpm), and 4.58 words per second for maximal reading aloud (275 wpm). The experiment was included in Huey's hugely influential book The psychology and pedagogy of reading (Huey, 1908), together with the data of Quantz (1898). As such, the very first estimates of normal silent reading were set between 300 and 350 wpm. Tinker An experimental psychologist very active in reading research in the first half of the 20 th century was Tinker. He published a series of over 20 papers addressing various variables that may affect reading speed, such as letter font and various layout options. In most of these studies he used the Chapman-Cook Speed of Reading test. It had two forms, each containing 30 paragraphs of 30 words. Toward the end of the paragraph there was an awkward word spoiling the paragraph. Participants had to tick off the word and finish as many paragraphs as possible in 1.75 minutes. An example of a paragraph was: "Yesterday I went downtown to buy some shoes and rubbers, but when I got home, I found I had forgotten to go to the flower-store to get them." University undergraduates typically finished some 18 paragraphs (540 words) in 1.75 minutes, making a reading speed of 309 wpm. In one of the rare studies taking longer than 1.75 minutes per condition, Tinker (1955) asked his participants to do the task for 30 minutes. They finished on average 317 paragraphs, given a reading rate of 317 wpm (30 words per paragraph and 30 minutes cancelling each other out). Unfortunately, the task was less than optimal, because the * means that the article is part of the meta-analyses

show abstract

“…LT are scored on a holistic Text Gradient Levels (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010), which includes a continuum of text characteristics that inform the level of support (and challenge) a reader will encounter in the text. There is moderate to strong evidence that providing children with LT can support wide reading of a variety of texts and ultimately improve children’s fluency and text comprehension (Foorman et al, 2016; Hassrick, Raudenbush, & Rosen, 2017; Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016). In this study, the LT condition was designed to foster students’ interest in reading leveled fiction and nonfiction texts, thereby increasing exposure to print and a broader range of vocabulary using texts that were neither too hard nor too easy for children (Allington, 2005; Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Mol & Bus, 2011; Stanovich, 2000).…”

Section: Using a Smart Design To Develop Two Approaches To Context Personalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) to Develop an Adaptive K–2 Literacy Intervention With Personalized Print Texts and App-Based Digital Activities

Kim¹,

Asher²,

Burkhauser³

et al. 2019

AERA Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employs a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design to develop an adaptive intervention with personalized print and digital content for kindergarten to Grade 2 children (n = 273). In Stage 1, we ask whether it is better for children to receive an adaptive intervention based on (a) 10 conceptually coherent texts or (b) 10 leveled texts on a range of topics. In Stage 2, we ask how best to encourage nonresponding children. Findings indicate that children who received either conceptually coherent texts or leveled texts performed similarly on reading comprehension posttests, while augmenting and intensifying follow-up with gamification of the app and text messages to parents improved comprehension outcomes for nonresponders. Descriptively, we find that only 26% (n = 71) of parents accessed the app, highlighting the need for better implementation procedures to increase take up of app-based digital activities.

show abstract

Matching Interventions to Reading Needs: A Case for Differentiation

Cited by 18 publications

References 32 publications

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate

Using a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) to Develop an Adaptive K–2 Literacy Intervention With Personalized Print Texts and App-Based Digital Activities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About