Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties

Abstract

This article reviews research related to intensive interventions within a Response to Intervention framework. We review the research from studies that provided different levels of intensity of intervention with the goal of establishing a case that movement through less intensive tiers of intervention may not be an effective and responsible approach to addressing the reading difficulties of some students, particularly those with significant reading difficulties or disabilities.

Exploration of a Blended Learning Approach to Reading Instruction for Low SES Students in Early Elementary Grades

“…Effective instruction involves clear goals for the student, content that is explicit, systematic, and scaffolded with immediate modeling and corrective feedback, familiar instructional routines, and ongoing monitoring of student performance (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001;Foorman et al, 2003;Scammacca et al, 2007;Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher, 2010). This description of effective instruction can seem overwhelming to teachers of underperforming students who have not yet mastered concepts presented at lower levels.…”

Le modèle de réponse à l’intervention et la prévention des difficultés d’apprentissage de la lecture au préscolaire et au primaire

“…Le palier III, pour sa part, constitue un programme d'intervention supplémentaire encore plus intensif et ciblé à l'intention des élèves pour qui le palier II n'a pas réussi à soutenir la progression des apprentissages attendus. Chaque palier s'inscrit donc sur un continuum d'intensification (palier I → palier II → palier III) afin de répondre adé-quatement aux besoins de tous les élèves et d'éviter qu'ils accumulent des retards insurmontables dans leurs apprentissages (Harn, Kame'ennui et Simmons, 2007;Vaughn, Denton et Fletcher, 2010).…”

A Spotlight on Treatment Intensity: An Important and Often Overlooked Component of Intervention Inquiry

“…Preliminary evidence indicates that for students requiring the most intensive service delivery, more may be better with respect to some of these variables, such as goal specificity and treatment complexity. That is, the more specific the task goals and the more treatment components delivered within the treatment package, the better the outcomes (e.g., Swanson and Sachse-Lee 2000; Vaughn et al 2010).…”

“…Other modifications that could be made by educators and school professionals include the following: altering group size or composition, modifying the target skill to better match students' instructional levels, and changing the intervention that students are exposed to (Daly et al 2007). Unfortunately, there is some evidence that the choices school personnel commonly make, such as adjusting intervention intensity primarily along group size dimensions (e.g., Mellard et al 2010), contradicts what little evidence does exist pertaining to intensity variables that actually impact some student outcomes (e.g., Vaughn et al 2010).…”

“…It is possible that the simplest, most efficacious approach to adjusting treatment intensity is to add time to the session (e.g., increasing from 20 to 30 min sessions), increase the number of sessions per week (e.g., increasing from 3 to 4 days a week), or increase the number of total weeks the treatment is delivered (adding an additional 2 weeks; e.g., Duhon et al 2009;Vaughn et al 2010). In other cases, altering the complexity of the treatment by adding or subtracting treatment components (Codding et al 2011;Daly et al 2007;Swanson, and Sachse-Lee 2000) or by varying the types of treatment components delivered may be important (e.g., Vaughn et al 2010). For example, a self-monitoring component may be added to a Tier 2 reading group focused on improving reading comprehension skills to increase students' engagement in the supplemental instruction provided (Lane et al 2013).…”