A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

13.07.2015 Views
VOLUME 35, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2002 397(Table 3 continued)Author/participantTreatment description/sampleage/design size/treatment duration Dependent measures Results/effect sizes (d )Weinstein (continued)3. For fixed criterion phase, each studentreread the passage twice daily until heor she met the specified criterion ong>ofong>90 wcpm.4. For improvement phase, studentsreread a passage until they achieved3 successive improvements.5. Results were plotted and shared withstudent immediately. Generalization improvedafter improvementphase from 5%to 89% but was mixedfor fixed-rate phase,ranging from –25% to56%.a These effect sizes were changed to positive numbers to reflect a growth in student accuracy rather than a decrease in errors.and repeated reading performed significantlybetter than the comparisonsample. Similar significant differenceswere found for a measure ong>ofong> comprehensionand for a maze measure. Althoughno other significant differenceswere noted, the mean effect size for thecombination intervention versus thecontrol sample was moderate to largeat d = 73. D. Fuchs et al. (1997) compareda partner reading interventionthat included repeated readings ong>ofong> textand comprehension activities (paragraphsummarization and predictionactivities) to a traditional reading program,yielding a low to moderatemean effect size ong>ofong> d = .44.A four-element intervention implementedby Sutton (1991), which includeda combination ong>ofong> teachermodeledreading, target students’rereading to a tutor, peer-paired reading,and target students’ rereading tothe teacher, resulted in a considerableincrease in reading rate and a decreasein reading errors, with a large mean effectsize ong>ofong> d = 1.04. Weinstein andCooke (1992) used a similar interventionin a single-subject design in whichstudents listened to a taped model beforerereading the passage to a particularcriterion and then examining theirprogress as it was plotted on a graph.The four participating students all experiencedincreased fluency as a resultong>ofong> this intervention.Other Elements That Influence FluencyPerformance in Repeated ReadingInterventions. Various other elementsong>ofong> interventions may affect readingfluency. Studies that addressedthese elements are listed in Table 4.Amount ong>ofong> text. A. L. Cohen (1988)compared the amount ong>ofong> text presentedto students as they repeatedlyread passages from a computer screen.One sample (N = 16) was presented apassage at a rate ong>ofong> three to five wordsat a time, whereas a second sample(N = 16) had control over the amountong>ofong> text that was presented. Both sampleswere compared to a control sample.No significant differences werenoted between the repeated readingsamples. The sample that receivedonly three to five words per screenscored significantly higher on measuresong>ofong> single- and multisyllabic wordreading accuracy. Both repeated readingsamples demonstrated improvedfluency over the control condition, witha large mean effect size ong>ofong> d = 1.98. Effectsize comparisons ong>ofong> the two repeatedreading groups were small,with the exception ong>ofong> reading accuracy(ranging from d = .56 to d = .89), favoringthe controlled presentation ong>ofong> threeto five words per screen.Text difficulty. Three samples (N =37) were studied to better understandthe influence ong>ofong> text difficulty in repeatedreading interventions. Sindelar,Monda, and O’Shea (1990) comparedrepeated reading ong>ofong> instructional-leveltexts (defined as text that could be readat 50–100 words per minute with twoor fewer errors) to repeated reading ong>ofong>mastery-level texts (defined as text thatcould be read at more than 100 wordsper minute). Statistically significantdifferences on a measure ong>ofong> oral readingfluency favored the mastery-leveltext sample (d = 1.57). However, theinstructional-level sample significantlyoutperformed the mastery-level sampleon accuracy (d = .61). No significantdifferences were identified on the measureong>ofong> comprehension.In a related study, Rashotte and Torgesen(1985) compared repeated readingong>ofong> text that included a high proportionong>ofong> overlapping words withrepeated reading ong>ofong> text in which therewas a low degree ong>ofong> overlap. Therewere no significant differences betweengroups. However, the condition inwhich there were few overlappingwords performed better than the conditionwith a high degree ong>ofong> overlap onall measures.Number ong>ofong> repetitions. To determinethe number ong>ofong> times that studentsshould repeatedly read text for themost fluency benefit, the findings fromtwo samples (N = 54) are relevant.O’Shea et al. (1987) used a factorial designto study the relative influence ong>ofong>the number ong>ofong> repetitions on fluency.They used three intervention levels: asingle reading, three repeated readings,and seven repeated readings. Ona measure ong>ofong> oral reading fluency,main effects were identified with significantdifferences between all groups.Seven readings resulted in higher performancethan three readings, whichwas significantly better than a singlereading. On a measure ong>ofong> story retelling,there were no differences between

398TABLE 4Studies That Examined Other Elements ong>ofong> Repeated Reading InterventionsAuthor/participantTreatment description/sampleage/design size/treatment duration Dependent measures Results/effect sizes (d)A. L. Cohen, 19888 years 7 months–13 years2 monthsMultiple-group comparison Processing Power (PP; n = 16): Repeatedreading (4 times) with text presented3–5 words at a time. Repetitive Reading (RR; n = 16): Repeatedreading (4 times) with studentcontrol ong>ofong> text amount. No-treatment comparison (C; n = 15).Duration: 195–202 minutesParagraph reading speed RR vs. PP: d = .19(practiced)Paragraph reading accuracy PP vs. RR: d = .56(practiced)Paragraph reading speed PP vs. RR: d = .26(unpracticed)Paragraph reading accuracy PP vs. RR: d = .19(unpracticed)Reading fluency, final text PP vs. RR: d = .30;PP vs. C: d = 1.58;RR vs. C: d = 1.25Reading accuracy, final text PP vs. RR: d = .89;PP vs. C: d = 3.02;RR vs. C: d = 2.09Word reading speed (single PP > C; insufficient insyllable,practiced)formation for dWord reading speed (multisyllable, PP > C; insufficient inpracticed)formation for dWord reading speed (unpracticed) No significant differencesbetweengroups; insufficientinformation for dPassage comprehensionNo significant differencesbetweengroups; insufficientinformation for d;Mean effect size for repeatedreading interventions:d = 1.98Lovitt, T. W., & Hansen, C. L.,19768–12 yearsOne-group pretest–posttest Baseline (B) (N = 7): Students readaloud to the teacher. Teacher suppliesmissed or mispronounced words.Teacher records responses and studentsrespond to written comprehensionquestions after reading. Treatment (T): Students reread or skiplevelled passages contingent on theircorrect word rate and comprehensionscores. Drill was provided on portionsong>ofong> reading that were problematic.Duration: 800 minutesCorrect word rate (cwpm)Orral error rate (epm)Percentage ong>ofong> comprehensionquestions correctAll students improvedin correct rate. Meangain ong>ofong> 9.3 cwpm. Increasesranged from2.4 cwpm to 15.3cwpm.Four ong>ofong> the seven participantsdecreasedtheir error rates. Themean error rate improvedfrom 31 epmto 2.9 epm. Decreasesranged from.5 to –.9 epm.All students improved intheir comprehensionresponses, with amean increase ong>ofong>11.9% and a rangeong>ofong> 5.7% to 16.1%.Sindelar, Monda, & O’Shea, 1990Age not reportedTreatment–ComparisonRepeated reading–Instructional level(I; n = 17): Reread text 3 times at50–100 wpm.Repeated reading–Mastery level (M;n = 8): Reread text 3 times at 100 wpmor faster.Oral reading fluencyM > I; M vs. I(1 reading): d = 2.31;M vs. I (3 readings):d = 1.57(Table continues)

Page 9 and 10: 394(Table 2 continued)Author/partic

Page 11: 396TABLE 3Studies Examining Repeate

Page 15 and 16: 400JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES



Page 21: 406JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

fluency

repeated

oral

passage

comprehension

accuracy

significant

fuchs

intervention

repeatedreading

synthesis

interventions

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ... ... View more A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...

Delete template?

Save as template ?

A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ... A Synthesis of Research on Effective Interventions for Building ...