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

394(Table 2 continued)Author/participantTreatment description/sampleage/design size/treatment duration Dependent measures Results/effect sizes (d)Rose, 19849.5–13.1 yearsAlternating treatment designRose & Beattie, 19868.7–11.6 yearsAlternating treatment designSmith, 1979 (Study 1);8 yearsMultiple baseline,multi-element designSmith, 1979 (Study 2)12 yearsMulti-element singlesubjectdesignN = 6 Baseline: Oral reading only, no previewing. Silent previewing: Student read passagesilently before reading it aloud tothe teacher. Listening previewing: Teacher readpassage aloud while student followedalong. Then student read passagealoud to teacher.Length and duration: Approximately25 days <strong>of</strong> intervention. Length <strong>of</strong> dailyintervention not specified.N = 4 Baseline: Daily individual oral reading,introduction to new words, practice <strong>of</strong>new words via flash cards, sentenceconstruction using new words, andworksheet practice. Listening previewing: Teacher readsassigned passage orally at relativelyslow conversational rate (approximately130–160 wpm) as students followalong. All other instructional proceduressame as baseline. Taped previewing: Identical to listening,except teacher had prerecorded thetaped passage and students followedalong with the tape.Length and duration: 3–4-min. sessionsdaily. Approximately 30 days <strong>of</strong> interventionalternating between 3 conditions.N = 2 Baseline: Children read a passage atinstructional level without support. Modeling: Teacher read child’s passagefor 1 minute at 100 wpm. Childcontinued reading from where teacherstopped. Follow-up: Students read passage additionaltime.Length and duration: Not specified, allconditions administered once.N = 1 Baseline: Child read a passage at instructionallevel without support. Modeling: Teacher read passage for1 minute at 100 wpm. Child continuedreading from where teacher stopped. Modeling with correction: Same asmodeling, plus corrections providedduring student reading.Words read correctly per minute Listening previewingled to faster readingrates. Both silent and listeningpreviewing appearedto be morebeneficial thanbaseline.Oral reading fluency Listening and tapedReading accuracypreviewing resultedin increased oralreading rates relativeto baseline. Listening previewingprocedure was morebeneficial than tapedpreviewing for 3 <strong>of</strong> 4participants. Error rates were noteffected by the previewingprocedures.Words read correctly per minute Intervention resultedErrors per minutein increased speedand accuracy forboth students.Words read correctly per minute Speed and accuracyErrors per minuteincreased with eachadditional interventioncomponent. Maximum speed andaccuracy achievedunder the modelingwith correction andpreviewing condition.(Table continues)