Current affiliations: Rachel Donegan, Department of Special and Early Education, College of Education, Northern Illinois University. Jeanne Waznek, Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University
Changes in affiliations: Rachel Donegan, formerly at Department of Special Education, Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University.
Contact information: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rachel Donegan, Department of Special and Early Education, Northern Illinois University, 1425 West Lincoln Hwy., DeKalb, IL, 60115; ude.uin@nagenodr
In this study, we conducted a review of reading intervention research (1988–2019) for upper elementary struggling readers and examined intervention area (e.g., foundational, comprehension, or multicomponent) and intensity (e.g., hours of intervention, group size, and individualization) as possible moderators of effects. We located 33 studies containing 49 treatment-comparison contrasts, found small effects for foundational reading skills (g = 0.22) and comprehension (g = 0.21), and decreased effects when considering standardized measures only. For intervention area, only multicomponent interventions predicted significant effects for both comprehension and foundational outcomes. For intensity, we did not find systematic evidence that longer or individualized interventions were associated with larger effects. However, interventions implemented in very small groups predicted larger comprehension outcomes. Overall, more research examining the quality of school provided reading instruction and how the severity of reading difficulties may impact effects of more intensive interventions is needed.
Keywords: at risk population, reading difficulties, reading disabilities, reading intervention, upper elementary
The upper elementary grades represent a critical time in literacy development. There are several advancements expected of students as they transition from the early elementary to late elementary grades. Students are expected to read texts that increasingly include longer, more difficult words (Hiebert, 2008). In addition, students are expected to read and comprehend expository text which they may have had little exposure to earlier in their schooling (Duke, 2000) and which poses unique and increasing challenges to comprehension (Duke & Roberts, 2010). These challenges that emerge as students transition from the primary to upper elementary grades can contribute to continued reading difficulties for students who struggled with reading in the primary grades and also may be associated with the appearance of new, late-emerging reading difficulties for other students leading to a substantial population of struggling readers as students progress to their last years in elementary school (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Elleman, & Gilbert, 2008; Lipka, Lesaux, Siegel, 2006).
Upper elementary struggling readers are unique from those found in the primary grades and consequently may require specialized and diverse intervention approaches. In contrast to struggling readers in the primary grades where word reading difficulties account for the majority of the reading problems (Nation & Snowling, 1997; Shankweiler et al., 1999), older struggling readers may demonstrate difficulties in foundational skills such as word reading, or more advanced skills such as comprehension of text, or they may struggle in both domains (Leach, Scarborough, Rescorla, 2003; Lipka et al., 2006). According to the Simple View of Reading, deficits in either domain can severely impact overall reading performance (Gough & Tumner, 1986).
In order to address the diverse reading needs of this group of struggling readers, interventions that focus on foundational skills or comprehension as well as multicomponent interventions that include instruction in both domains may all be needed. Foundational skill interventions include instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, and/or fluency. Effective phonics instruction for older struggling readers should go beyond the decoding of single syllable words to include strategies for decoding multisyllabic such as using syllabication and word parts (e.g., roots and affixes) to break apart and decode longer words (Boardman et al., 2008). Repeated reading, where students read the same passage multiple times while receiving feedback and teacher or peer support, and nonrepetitive reading, where students receive the same feedback and supports but read one or more texts without additional readings, are two types of fluency interventions that have both been shown effective for improving struggling readers’ foundational reading skills (Lee & Yoon, 2017; Zimmerman, Reed, & Aloe, 2019).
Explicit vocabulary instruction and comprehension strategy instruction are two effective approaches for improving the reading comprehension of older struggling readers (Elleman, Lindo, Morphy, & Compton, 2009; Kamil et al., 2008). Direct instruction in word meaning that goes beyond definition teaching to include deep processing activities including generating examples and nonexamples and creating semantic maps are effective for increasing the vocabulary knowledge of older struggling readers (Bryant, Goodwin, Bryant, & Higgins, 2003). When it comes to comprehension strategy instruction, three particular areas that show consistent positive effects for older struggling readers are learning strategies for identifying the main idea, summarizing the text, and self-regulating or monitoring learning strategies while reading (Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Cuillo, 2010; Solis et al., 2012).
Multicomponent interventions that include instruction in both foundational and comprehension skills have shown promise for students in the upper elementary grades according to a review by Wanzek et al. (2010). These interventions combine effective instruction across components making them well-aligned to the needs of older struggling readers who tend to have difficulties across reading domains. However, there were few studies examining multicomponent interventions at the time of the review. In addition, since the Wanzek et al. review, more research examining multicomponent reading interventions for upper elementary students with reading difficulties has been conducted.
It may also be important to consider features of intervention intensity such as implementation intensity (e.g., total duration and group size) and individualization when considering intervention approaches for older struggling readers since these readers may demonstrate persistent reading difficulties or present reading skills that are far below those of their peers.
There has been limited work examining the effects of reading interventions implemented for different durations and in different sized groups for older students and the results have been mixed. One recent study examining the effects of intervention duration for late elementary students, those randomly assigned to two years of intervention demonstrated stronger word reading skills than those randomly assigned to receive intervention for only one year; however, these effects did not extend to comprehension outcomes (Miciak et al., 2018). Another study examining impact of group size on middle school struggling readers found a pattern of effects favoring students randomly assigned to smaller groups for decoding and spelling outcomes but these differences were not statistically significant (Vaughn et al., 2010).
Previous work has demonstrated individualized interventions that include instruction designed to address individual student need may be effective for elementary and secondary students who have failed to respond adequately to previous interventions (Denton et al., 2013; O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005; Pyle & Vaughn, 2012). However, there hasn’t been conclusive evidence that individualized interventions have added value over standardized interventions where instruction is consistent across students. For example, a study by Vaughn et al. (2011) compared reading outcomes of middle school struggling readers randomly assigned to a standardized intervention, individualized intervention, or business as usual comparison group and found both intervention groups similarly outperformed the comparison group on decoding, fluency and comprehension.
In summary, fourth and fifth grade struggling readers present diverse reading needs. Due to these diverse needs, a broad range of interventions have been developed. When examining the effects of interventions, in addition to considering instructional content, a closer look at intensity when considering intervention effects may be needed, especially for students with intensive reading needs.
Previous Syntheses of Reading Intervention ResearchSeveral researchers have examined reading intervention research for older students, including students in the upper elementary grades. Flynn, Zheng, & Swanson (2012) synthesized the effects of reading interventions for students in Grades 5 to 9 with reading disabilities and reported small to moderate effects across outcomes but noted few studies examined comprehension or multicomponent interventions. Outcomes did not differ significantly by type of intervention or duration of intervention. Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing (2015) used meta-analytic techniques to analyze the effects of reading interventions for older students (grades 4–12) and found a mean effect size of 0.49 for all measures as well as an effect of 0.21 for standardized reading outcomes. The authors noted that the effects of interventions decreased across year of publication with more recent studies demonstrating smaller effects, suggesting a trend of diminishing effects. Scammacca and colleagues also reported some moderation of outcomes by intervention type, with vocabulary interventions resulting in higher effects than other types of interventions. Comprehension interventions were also found to have a significantly higher mean effect size than fluency or multicomponent interventions. The number of hours of intervention was not a significant moderator of outcomes for more recent studies.
Wanzek et al. (2013) examined the research on interventions with 75 or more sessions for students with reading difficulties in Grades 4 to12. Overall effects were reported as 0.10 for comprehension outcomes, 0.16 for reading fluency outcomes, 0.16 for word fluency outcomes, and 0.15 for spelling outcomes with only comprehension outcomes having significant variation across studies. The authors reported no significant moderation of the comprehension outcomes by group size or number of hours of intervention.
These research syntheses combined research on interventions for students in the upper elementary grades with the middle and secondary grades. Although no moderation by grade level was reported, outcomes and moderators of outcomes can vary dramatically across this wide range of grade levels (Pearson, Palinscar, Biancarosa, & Berman, 2020), making it difficult to ascertain the implications specifically for upper elementary students. Wanzek et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive review of school-based reading intervention research for students in Grades 4 and 5. They located 13 studies that used between group treatment-comparison designs. Out of these 13 studies, five focused on comprehension interventions with medium to very large mean effects reported, six studies focused on foundational skills with small to moderate effects reported for word study interventions specifically, and two studies focused on multicomponent interventions with medium to large effects reported. Overall, there were positive effects for reading interventions provided to upper elementary struggling readers. However, there were a small number of studies available overall, and the authors noted limitations of some of the studies including the use of unstandardized, researcher-developed measures to evaluate the effects of comprehension and vocabulary interventions. These types of measures are often associated with larger effects when compared to standardized, norm-referenced outcomes (Edmonds et al., 2009; Scammacca et al., 2015) and only provide information on outcomes closely aligned with the intervention rather than more generalizable outcomes. In addition, Wanzek et al. reported there were few studies on multicomponent interventions.
Since Wanzek’s et al.’s (2010) earlier review, several large-scaled randomized control trials focusing on late elementary struggling readers have been completed. This more robust research base along with Scammacca et al.’s (2015) finding of a trend of diminishing effects for more recent studies, and the unique and changing needs of struggling readers as they transition to the late elementary grades warrant an updated review of the research on reading interventions for late elementary students. The purpose of this review is to update and extend the earlier synthesis by Wanzek and colleagues (2010) for upper elementary struggling readers. To do this, we conducted updated searches to identify reading intervention research with late elementary students published since 2007. To extend the work, we carried out a statistical analysis of effects of intervention on reading outcomes, examining how intervention areas and intensity may have moderated effects. We sought to answer the following research questions:
What are the effects of reading interventions for fourth and fifth grade struggling readers? How are effects moderated by intervention areas and intensity?We adapted Wanzek et al.’s (2010) inclusion criteria for this review. In order to be included in this review, studies had to meet the following criteria:
A reading intervention targeting literacy in English for students struggling with reading was provided. Reading interventions provided to all students as a part of the general education curriculum were excluded.
The reading intervention included instruction in word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, or a combination of these components and was provided in a school setting. Programs conducted in home, clinic, or camp settings were excluded.
Participants in the reading intervention were described by study authors as below grade level in reading, at risk for reading disabilities or difficulties, or identified with reading disabilities or disaggregated data for these readers was provided. Studies that included participants with sensory or intellectual disabilities were excluded.
More than 50% of participants were in fourth or fifth grade (9 to 11 years old) or disaggregated data for these participants was provided.
Interventions were provided for a minimum of 15 sessions. Study outcomes included at least one measure of reading.The study used an experimental or quasi-experimental design where effects of intervention were compared across groups, and data for calculating effect sizes were provided. Quasi-experimental studies had to either include evidence of baseline equivalence or use a group assignment procedure to equate group (e.g., matched-pairs).
The study was published in English in a peer-reviewed journal.In order to identify studies for this review, we both conducted updated searches and identified studies included Wanzek’s et al., (2010) earlier review that met our inclusion criteria. In order to identify articles published since Wanzek and colleagues (2010) review, we followed a three-step search process. First, we conducted a search of three electronic databases, ERIC, Education Full Text, PsycINFO. We used search terms combining key words for reading (read*), struggling readers (reading difficult*, learning disabilit*, dyslexi*, learning problem*, reading failure, language impair*, reading disability*, low-achieving) and reading intervention (remedial reading, teaching methods, reading NEAR/4 intervention*, reading education, special education). Since the purpose of this search was to identify studies published since the original review, we limited results to documents from 2007 to 2019. Second, to identify recently published articles, we conducted a hand search of major journals that frequently publish reading intervention research (Exceptional Children, Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Special Education, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, Reading and Writing, Remedial and Special Education, Scientific Studies of Reading) for articles published online or in print in 2018 and 2019. Finally, ancestral searches were conducted of identified articles that met all inclusion criteria.
Using these search procedures, 5,100 articles were identified. Articles identified from the electronic and hand search were screened using a two-step process (see Figure 1 ). First, abstracts of identified articles were screened. After conducting the abstract screening, the full text of the remaining articles was screened. Common reasons articles were eliminated included during the abstract screen and full text screen were the majority of participants were outside fourth or fifth grades or a reading intervention was not provided. In total, 25 articles published since the original review were identified for inclusion.
Note. *One article described two studies
Next, we screened articles included in the original review for inclusion. Out of the 12 articles detailing treatment/comparison design studies included in the original review, seven articles describing eight studies met all inclusion criteria and were included. Three articles were excluded because they did not include information to calculate effect sizes and two articles were excluded because the intervention provided targeted literacy in a language other than English. In total, this left 33 studies identified for inclusion in this review.
In order to systematically capture study information, we developed a code sheet that included information on participants; study design and quality; measures including the component skill measured (foundational or comprehension) and if the measure was a norm-referenced, standardized reading outcome or an unstandardized measure such as an experimenter created measure, a skill inventory, or informal diagnostic measure closely aligned to the intervention; intervention areas including if the intervention included instruction in foundational reading skills only (phonemic awareness, phonics, or fluency), comprehension only (vocabulary and comprehension) or was multicomponent including instruction across both foundational skills and comprehension; intervention intensity including total hours of intervention, group size, and individualization; and reading outcomes. Studies were identified as including individualized instruction if any of the instructional targets or materials used in the intervention were initially planned and adjusted during the course of the intervention based on individual student progress. Due to reporting by some study authors of group size and hours of intervention as a range, these study characteristics were coded categorically. For group size, studies were coded according to the maximum group size reported (or average group size if maximum size was not reported) by the authors and were coded as implemented in group sizes of one or two, group sizes of four to seven, or groups of nine or more. For hours of intervention, studies were coded as having an intervention of 15 or fewer hours, 16 to 30 hours, or more than 30 hours. If the information described above was not included in the article, the first author of the article was contacted to request the information.
All studies were coded by the first author. To assess interrater reliability, two advanced doctoral students were trained in screening and coding procedures. Training included reviewing inclusion criteria and identifying articles that met did not meet inclusion criteria, reviewing the codebook and coding sample articles to reach a minimum of 90% reliability. Then, we randomly selected 20% of articles from both the abstract screen and full text screen to be double screened. Interrater reliability was 93% for the abstract screening and 92% for the full text screening. We randomly selected 13% of included articles to be double coded. Interrater reliability was 100% across all sections of the code sheet.
Several of the identified articles included multiple treatment groups, resulting in a total of 49 treatment/comparison contrasts. These were analyzed separately for foundational and comprehension outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated with post-test mean and standard deviations using the Campbell Collaborative Calculator (Wilson, n.d.). The calculator provided Cohen’s d effect sizes. For one study (Reed, Aloe, Reeger, & Folsom, 2019), we used author reported effect sizes and variances in the absence of post-test means and standard deviations. All effect sizes were converted to Hedges g using the following formula
g = d n 1 + n 2 d fwhere n1 and n2 correspond to the number of participants in each group and df equals the total number of participants minus the number of groups. For studies with multiple effect sizes, we computed the average effect size for foundational and comprehension outcomes, weighting the averages by the sample size.
We examined the effect sizes for the presence of outliers by constructing stem and leaf plots. In order to assess the presence and magnitude of heterogeneity in effect sizes, we calculated Q, τ 2, , I 2 statistics. In order to analyze effects, we used a weighted regression using a random effects model. We calculated weights for each effect size using the following formula
w * = 1 σ 2 + τ 2where σ 2 refers to the subject sampling variance estimate and τ 2 refers to the between study variance. We applied these weights when conducting the regression. We assessed the impact of the following moderators: type of measure (standardized or unstandardized), intervention components (foundational, comprehension, or multicomponent), and intensity (group size, hours of intervention, individualization).
The 33 studies included 4565 total participants. Participants included readers with and at risk for disabilities and students generally classified as struggling readers and therefore included a broad range of reading abilities (see Table 1 ). Across studies, on average 55% of participants were male and 45% of participants were female.
Intervention Descriptions and Outcomes
| Study | Selection Criteria Avg. Performance at Pretest ** | Intervention Description | Outcomes | Contrast | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benner, 2007 | Identified by school as not responsive to core instruction or interventions. Avg. Found.: 88.88 | T: Phonics, word identification, and fluency intervention supplanting core reading instruction C: General education classroom reading instruction | T1 vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency | −0.27 −0.35 −0.11 | ||||||||
| Bennett et al., 2015 | Below grade level on the state standardized test and identified by school as poor readers | T: Computerized program incorporating repeated reading C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Comp. | 0.60 | ||||||||
| Cirino et al., 2017 | Standard score ≤ 90 on the GMRT reading comp. subtest Avg. Found.: 87.85 Avg. Comp.: 79.43 | T1: Vocab. and comp. instruction using readings of state history T2: T1 plus instruction in executive functioning and self-regulated learning C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Comp. * | .37 | .25 | |||||||
| Connor et al., 2018 | Standard score < 98 on the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test Avg. Found.: 97.5 Avg. Comp.: 85.50 | T1: Sensorimotor simulations of abstract concepts with instruction in language, reading comp., and writing T2: Explicit instruction in expository text structure using signal words C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. Comp * | 0.04 −0.01 0.06 0.01 −0.09 | −0.06 −0.07 −0.06 0.07 −0.01 | |||||||
| Das et al., 2008 | Scored ≤ 1 standard deviation below the mean on word identification or pseudoword reading tests Avg. Found.: 83.35 | T: General strategy use and specific application to reading and spelling C: Phonics tasks compiled by the school resource teacher | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. PA WR & S | 0.20 0.30 0.07 | ||||||||
| Das et al., 1995 Study 1 | Scored ≤ 12 months below expected age on WRMT word identification or word attack subtest and had lower than average scores in an area of cognitive processing. | T: Cognitive training tasks (repetition, joining, sequencing, matching, verification, and memorizing) both with and without words C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S | 0.06 | ||||||||
| Das et al., 1995 Study 2 | Scored ≤ 12 months below expected age on WRMT word identification or word attack subtest and had lower than average scores in an area of cognitive processing. | T1: Cognitive training tasks (repetition, joining, sequencing, matching, verification, and memorizing) without words. T2: Identical to T1 except training tasks were completed with words C: Previously trained on tasks with and without words | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. WR & S | 0.35 | −0.03 | |||||||
| Fuchs et al., 2018 | Identified by school as at risk for reading difficulties, scored > 13 th and < 30 th percentile on the TOWRE, Sight Word Efficiency subtest, < 60 th percentile on the reading comp. Iowa Test of Basic Skills, reading comp. subtest, and earned a T–score >37 on the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence vocab. or matrix reasoning subtest Avg. Found.: 94.00 | T1: Before and after reading strategies focused on comp. of informational text T2: T1 plus activities to strengthen working memory C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Comp. Comp. * | 0.56 1.02 | 0.64 1.08 | |||||||
| Keller et al., 2019 | Identified with a learning disability by school | T: Computerized training in phonics, phonemic awareness, spelling, and fluency and teacher-led instruction in decoding, text reading strategies, and mindfulness C: Computerized training in phonics, phonemic awareness, spelling, and fluency and teacher-led phonetic and orthographic activities | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S * | 1.07 | ||||||||
| Kim et al., 2011 | Below proficient on the state reading assessment | T: After-school intervention with whole group comp. and vocab. lessons, and computer-based individualized practice with found. and comp. skills C: Typical district after-school program | T vs C 4 th gr. | T vs C 5 th gr. | |||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. | 0.15 0.16 0.15 −0.06 | 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.50 | |||||||
| Kim et al., 2010 | Below proficient on the state reading assessment Avg. Found.: 91.77 Avg. Comp.: 91.34 | T: After-school intervention program with small group fluency, comp., and decoding lessons; independent reading, and computer-based individualized practice with found. and comp. skills C: Typical district after-school program | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. Fluency Comp. | −0.02 0.01 | ||||||||
| Mason et al., 2013 | Identified by school as having difficulty with writing and reading comp. and scored in lowest range on state reading and writing tests | T1: Self-regulated strategy development in comp. strategies for before, during, and after reading T2: T1 plus informative paragraph writing instruction C: Access to instructional passages | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Comp. Comp. * | 0.58 0.79 | 0.55 0.51 | |||||||
| Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 | Identified with a learning disability in reading, received reading instruction in a special education setting, had IEP objectives in reading, and had an instructional reading level between primer and one grade below their grade level | T1: Peer tutoring using repeated reading T2: Peer tutoring using continuous reading C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. Fluency Comp. | −0.52 −0.33 | 0.37 0.67 | |||||||
| Miciak et al., 2018 | Standard score ≤ 85 on the GMRT Avg. Found.: 85.59 Avg. Comp.: 79.43 | T1: Two-year reading intervention with vocab., individualized word study, text reading, and comp. instruction using social studies texts; year 1 outcomes T2: One-year reading intervention identical to T1 T3: Two-year reading intervention identical to T1 with added self-regulation and goal setting; year 2 outcomes C: Typical school reading instruction | Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. | T1 vs C 0.03 − 0.03 0.16 −0.002 | T2 vs C −0.11 −0.05 −0.05 −0.15 | T3 vs C 0.18 0.22 0.26 −0.002 | |||
| O’Connor et al., 2002 | Read < 80 words per minute on beginning second-grade text and scored < 2.2. grade equivalent on the WRMT Avg. Found.: 82.28 Avg. Comp.: 89.36 | T1: Phonemic awareness, phonics and word analysis, fluency building, comp. strategies, and integrated spelling or writing using instructional level reading materials T2: Identical to T1 except reading materials matched general education classroom C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. PA WR & S Fluency Comp. Comp. * | 1.05 1.37 1.15 0.78 0.78 1.19 | 1.02 1.58 1.22 0.45 1.02 1.24 | |||||||
| O’Connor et al., 2007 | Read 20–80 word per minute on grade level passages and earned a standard score > 69 on the PPVT Avg. Found.: 89.49 Avg. Comp.: 87.86 | T1: Repeated reading T2: Continuous reading with same text as T1 C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Fluency * Comp. | 0.66 0.75 0.48 0.78 0.99 | 0.36 0.34 0.41 0.66 0.73 | |||||||
| Reed et al., 2019 | Below grade level benchmarks on Fall and Winter FASTBridge Oral Reading Fluency assessment | T: Summer reading program with whole group instruction, small group instruction individualized to student need, and literacy centers C: No summer reading program | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Comp. | 0.06 0.28 | ||||||||
| Ring et al., 2012 | Below grade level oral reading rate and either below proficient on state reading assessment or below grade level on the Texas Primary Reading Inventory Avg. Found.: 97.20 Avg. Comp.: 97.81 | T: Word-level phonics, fluency using word lists and connected texts, and comp. instruction C: Fluency using connected text only and comp. | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. | 0.14 0.07 0.15 −0.13 | ||||||||
| Ritchey et al., 2012 | Identified with ≥ 40% probability of reading risk using reading assessments and teacher rating scales Avg. Found.: 85.32 Avg. Comp.: 86.54 | T: Comp. strategies, fluency, vocab., and decoding strategies instruction using science texts with embedded motivational components C: Typical school reading instruction only | T v C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S WR & S * Fluency Comp. Comp. * | 0.21 0.01 0.55 0.23 −0.09 0.31 | ||||||||
| Ritchey et al., 2017 | Identified with difficulties in reading comp. by school and scored < 30 th percentile on the TOSREC Avg. Comp.: 84.6 | T: Comp. and decoding strategies instruction using science texts C: Typical school reading instruction only | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. Fluency Comp. Comp. * | −0.09 0.20 0.73 | ||||||||
| Roberts et al., 2018 | Scored ≤ 25 th percentile on the TOSREC | T1: After-school intervention with individualized computerized and small group lessons focused on word reading, fluency, and comp. T2: After-school reading intervention with computerized instruction and small group lessons focused on text reading and comp. C: No after-school reading intervention | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Comp. | −0.03 | −0.12 | |||||||
| Swanson & O’Connor 2009 | Standard score > 70 on PPVT and read < 85 words per minute on a grade level passage Avg. Found.: 91.21 Avg. Comp.: 81.25 | T1: Repeated reading of connected texts T2: Continuous reading of connected texts. C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. | −0.33 −0.41 −0.16 −0.15 | −0.52 −0.62 −0.33 −0.18 | |||||||
| Thames et al., 2008 | Lowest quartile of performance on state reading assessment | T: Individualized instruction in vocab. and comp. strategies supplanting core reading instruction C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | ||||||
| Comp. * | 0.55 | ||||||||
| Therrien, et al., 2006 | Identified with a learning disability in reading or at risk for reading failure and had instructional reading level of first to fourth grade. Avg. Found.: 81.66 | T: Passages matched to student performance read two to four times to meet fluency criterion and comp. questions answered with scaffolding C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency | 0.05 0.07 0.04 | ||||||||
| Torgesen et al., 2001 | Identified with a learning disability by school, scored ≥ 1.5 standard deviations below average on WRMT word attack and word identification subtests, and performed below grade level on phonological awareness test of Lindamood assessment. Avg. Found.: 71.25 Avg. Comp.: 79.48 | T: Focused on phonemic awareness, encoding, and decoding at the word level. C: Focused on word recognition and fluency, phonics and oral reading with text comp. with practice split equally between word and text level. | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S WR & S * Fluency Comp. | 0.32 0.18 −0.50 0.20 −0.06 | ||||||||
| Toste et al., 2019 | Identified by their schools as the lowest performing readers not receiving intensive reading interventions and scored < 25 th percentile on either subtest of the TOWRE Avg. Found.: 91.43 Avg. Comp.: 88.72 | T1: Focused on vowel sounds, decoding, spelling, and fluency with multisyllabic words T2: T1 plus motivational beliefs training C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | |||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Found. * WR & S * Comp. | 0.28 0.37 0.14 2.00 0.06 | 0.59 0.66 0.49 2.12 0.15 | |||||||
| Vadasy & Sanders 2008 | Scored at-risk on DIBELS and were identified by their teachers as having low fluency or comp. Avg. Found.: 88.82 Avg. Comp.: 79.43 | T: Fluency with repeated reading, vocab., and comp. instruction using nonfiction science and social studies passages C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. Comp. * | 0.03 0.11 −0.01 0.39 0.30 | ||||||||
| Vaughn et al., 2016 | Standard score ≤ 85 on the GMRT Avg. Found.: 85.59 Avg. Comp.: 88.68 | T: Vocab., comp., fluency and individualized multisyllabic word study C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Fluency Comp. | −0.05 −0.08 0.05 −0.11 | ||||||||
| Vaughn, et al., 2019 | Standard score ≤ 85 on the TOSREC Avg. Found.: 86.66 | T: Word study, fluency, and comp. instruction with self-regulation components including goal-setting and comp. monitoring C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S WR & S * Fluency Comp. | 0.19 0.12 0.48 0.27 0.07 | ||||||||
| Wanzek & Roberts 2012 | Identified as at high risk for reading disabilities by school and scored ≤ 25 th percentile on comp. subtest of the GMRT Avg. Found.: 93.88 Avg. Comp.: 82.17 | T1: Multicomponent intervention with a focus on word recognition T2: Multicomponent intervention with a focus on comp. instruction T3: Intervention above according to area of need C: Typical school reading instruction | T1 vs C | T2 vs C | T3 vs C | ||||
| Found. WR & S Comp. | −0.04 0.27 | −0.13 0.29 | −0.03 −0.02 | ||||||
| Wanzek et al., 2017 | Scored ≤ 30 th percentile on the reading comp. subtest of the GMRT | T: Phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocab., and comp. with a focus on text reading and comp. after the first 6 weeks C: Typical school reading instruction | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. WR & S Comp. | −0.05 0.11 | ||||||||
| Xin & Rieth, 2001 | Identified with a disability and receiving special education reading instruction | T: Video and class discussion used to teach content vocab. C: Dictionaries and class discussion used to teach content vocab. | T vs C | ||||||
| Comp. * | 0.34 | ||||||||
| Young et al., 2015 | Score below proficiency on a school assessment and identified by the school as demonstrating the greatest reading need | T: Fluency with texts adjusted according to student performance using neural impress method and repeated reading with brief comp. C: Typical school reading instruction only | T vs C | ||||||
| Found. Fluency Fluency * Comp. | 0.16 0.74 0.36 | ||||||||
Note. T = Treatment; C = Comparison; Avg. = Average; Found. = Foundational; PA = Phonological awareness; WR & S = Word reading and spelling; Comp. = Comprehension; Vocab. = Vocabulary; GMRT = Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test; WRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency; TOSREC = Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test;
* denotes unstandardized outcome; ** average performance at pretest was determined using available standard scoresForty-seven interventions were implemented across 49 treatment/comparison contrasts in the included studies (see Table 1 ). Out of the 49 contrasts, 38 contrasted a reading intervention with typical school reading instruction only. Typical school reading instruction consisted of core reading instruction for all students and also may have consisted of school provided intervention to some students in treatment and/or comparison groups as schools deemed necessary. In three contrasts, a researcher-provided intervention was compared with an active control condition (Keller, Ruthruff, & Keller, 2019) or an alternative researcher-provided intervention (Ring, Barefoot, Avrit, Brown, & Black, 2013; Torgesen et al., 2001). In three contrasts, a researcher-provided intervention was compared to a school-provided intervention (Kim, Capotosto, Hartry, & Fitzgerald, 2011; Kim, Samson, Fitzgerald, & Hartry, 2010). In two contrasts, a teacher provided intervention was compared to a different teacher provided intervention (Das, Hayward, Georgiou, Janzen, & Boora, 2008; Xin & Rieth, 2001). In two contrasts, a researcher-provided intervention was compared to a previously received intervention (Das, Mishra, & Pool, 1995).
Most interventions were implemented by researchers (n = 33). The remaining were implemented by in-service or pre-service teachers (n = 10), paraeducators (n = 2), or volunteers (n = 1). The majority of the interventions (n = 20) were multicomponent, 16 focused on foundational skills only, and 11 included instruction in comprehension only. In order to assess the intensity of the implemented intervention, we analyzed the total hours of intervention, group size, and if any aspect of the intervention was individualized (see Table 2 ). Most interventions (n = 17) included more than 30 hours of instruction. Out of the five interventions implemented for the most hours, three were after-school or summer programs (Kim et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2019), one included two daily intervention sessions (Torgesen et al., 2001), and one implemented a reading intervention across two school years (Miciak et al., 2018).
| Study | Design | N (% SWD) | Grade/Age | Intervention Components | Group size | Hours | Indiv. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benner, 2007 | Q | 68 (66.2% SWD) | 3 rd –8 th | Foundational | Up to 10 | 16.67–30 | No |
| Bennett et al., 2015 | E | 24 (25% SWD) | 5th | Foundational | 1 | 13.5 | No |
| Cirino et al., 2017 | E | 102 | 4th | 1) Comprehension 2) Comprehension | 1) 3 to 5 2) 3 to 5 | 1) 8.89 2) 9.16 | 1) No 2) No |
| Connor et al., 2018 | E | 420 | 4th | 1) Comprehension 2) Comprehension | 1) 4 to 5 2) 4 to 5 | 1) 21 2) 18 | 1) No 2) No |
| Das et al., 2008 | E | 41 | 9.4 | Foundational | 3 to 4 | 11.5 | No |
| Das et al., 1995 Study 1 | QE | 51 (78% SWD) | 8–11 | Foundational | 2 | 12.5 | No |
| Das et al., 1995 Study 2 | QE | 51 (78% SWD) | 8–11 | 1) Foundational 2) Foundational | 1) 2 2) 2 | 1) 12.5 2) 12.5 | 1) No 2) No |
| Fuchs et al., 2018 | E | 75 (10.5% SWD) | 5th | 1) Comprehension 2) Comprehension | 1) 2 2) 2 | 1) 25.67 2) 25.67 | 1) No 2) No |
| Keller et al., 2019 | Q | 18 (100% SWD) | 9.4 | Foundational | 1 | 20.83 | No |
| Kim et al., 2011 | E | 241 | 4 th –5 th | Multicomponent | avg. of 13 | 55–70 | Yes |
| Kim et al., 2010 | E | 264 (21.1% SWD) | 4 th –6 th | Multicomponent | 4 to 6 | 68.07 | Yes |
| Mason et al., 2013 | E | 95 (34% SWD) | 4 th | 1) Comprehension 2) Comprehension | 1) 4 2) 4 | 1) 9–11 2) 9–11 | 1) No 2) No |
| Mathes & Fuchs, 1993 | QE | 67 (100% SWD) | 4 th –6 th | 1) Foundational 2) Foundational | 1) 2 2) 2 | 1) 20 2) 12.5 | 1) No 2) No |
| Miciak et al., 2018 | E | 540 (23.6% SWD) | 4 th –5 th | 1) Multicomponent 2) Multicomponent | 1) 4 to 6 2) 4 to 6 | 1) 41.94 2) 71.37 | 1) Yes 2) Yes |
| O’Connor et al., 2002 | E | 46 (54% SWD) | 3 rd –5 th | 1) Multicomponent 2) Multicomponent | 1) 1 2) 1 | 1) 32.5 2) 32.5 | 1) Yes 2) No |
| O’Connor et al., 2007 | E | 37 (43% SWD) | 2 nd , 4 th | 1) Foundational 2) Foundational | 1) 1 2) 1 | 1) 10.5 2) 10.5 | 1) No 2) No |
| Reed et al., 2019 | Q | 258 (74.2% SWD) | 4 th | Multicomponent | Up to 15 | 84 | Yes |
| Ring et al., 2012 | Q | 84 (0% SWD) | 9.47 | Multicomponent | 1) avg. of 5 2) avg. of 5 | 21.3–23.3 | No |
| Ritchey et al., 2012 | E | 123 (0% SWD) | 4 th | Multicomponent | 2 to 4 | 16 | No |
| Ritchey et al., 2017 | E | 46 (10.8% SWD) | 5 th | Multicomponent | 2 to 4 | 18.5 | No |
| Roberts et al., 2018 | E | 475 (18% SWD) | 3 rd −5 th | 1) Multicomponent 2) Comprehension | 1) 3 to 6 2) 3 to 6 | 1) 44.1 2) 37.04 | 1) Yes 2) No |
| Swanson & O’Connor, 2009 | E | 71 | 4 th | 1) Foundational 2) Foundational | 1) 1 2) 1 | 1) 15 2) 15 | 1) No 2) No |
| Thames et al., 2008 | E | 58 | 4 th -8 th | Comprehension | 1 | 30 | Yes |
| Therrien et al., 2006 | E | 30 (53% SWD) | 4 th -8 th | Multicomponent | 1 | 8.33 to 12.5 | Yes |
| Torgesen et al., 2001 | E | 50 (100% SWD) | 8–10 | 1) Foundational | 1) 1 | 1) 67.5 | 1) No |
| Toste et al., 2019 | E | 144 | 4 th -5 th | 1) Foundational 2) Foundational | 1) 3 to 4 2) 3 to 4 | 1) 26.67 2) 26.67 | 1) No 2) No |
| Vadasy & Sanders 2008 | E | 119 (22.7% SWD) | 4 th -5 th | Multicomponent | 2 | 40 | No |
| Vaughn et al., 2016 | E | 484 (14% SWD) | 4 th | Multicomponent | 4 to 5 | 23.4–25.6 | Yes |
| Vaughn et al., 2019 | E | 252 (14% SWD) | 4 th -5 th | Multicomponent | 3 to 6 | 44.4 | No |
| Wanzek & Roberts 2012 | E | 133 (4.5% SWD) | 4 th | 1) Multicomponent 2) Multicomponent 3) Multicomponent | 1) 2 to 4 2) 2 to 4 3) 2 to 4 | 1) 42.5 to 57 2) 42.5 to 57 3) 42.5 to 57 | 1) No 2) No 3) No |
| Wanzek et al., 2017 | E | 406 (15% SWD) | 4 th | Multicomponent | 4 to 7 | 46.9 | No |
| Xin & Rieth, 2001 | QE | 76 (100% SWD) | 4 th -6 th | Comprehension | 9 | 9 | No |
| Young et al., 2015 | Q | 52 | 3 rd -5 th | Multicomponent | 1 | 6.65 | Yes |
Note. Q = Quasi-experimental; E = Experimental; SWD = Students with disabilities; Indiv. = Individualized
Group size varied widely across the interventions. Most interventions (n = 22) were implemented in small groups with a maximum group size between four to seven students. Two studies that implemented interventions with the largest groups also included limited time for practice and instruction in smaller groups (Kim et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2019).
Eleven interventions included at least some individualization of instruction during the intervention. Out of these, only one intervention included individualization throughout instruction (Thames et al., 2008). The remaining interventions included individualization in specific components of the intervention but not for the full intervention. These included computerized multicomponent practice (Kim et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2011; Roberts et al., 2018), word study instruction (Miciak et al., 2018 [two interventions]; Vaughn, Solís, Miciak, Taylor, & Fletcher, 2016), fluency instruction (Young, Mohr, Rasinski, 2015), brief multicomponent small group instruction (provided in addition to larger group instruction that was not individualized; Reed et al., 2019), or individualized texts based on student performance (O’Connor et al., 2002; Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones, 2006).
In this section, we report the meta-analytic results, including mean effects and variance explained, both overall for foundational and comprehension outcomes and for each moderator. We initially interpret effect sizes as small, medium, or large using benchmarks suggested by Cohen (1988) though more nuanced interpretation of these effects in comparison to effects from similar studies are found in the discussion.
There were 46 effects for foundational outcomes. We constructed a stem and leaf plot to detect outliers (see Figure 2 ) and found two effect sizes at the top end of the distribution from unstandardized reading outcomes. We retained these effect sizes and used a moderator analysis to further investigate differences in effects between standardized and unstandardized reading outcomes.
Stem and leaf plot of foundational outcome effect sizes
The estimated mean effect across all studies was g = 0.22 (p < .001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.33]) indicating a small positive and significant effect of reading interventions on foundational reading outcomes. The Q statistic indicated heterogeneity was present (Qtotal = 159.44, df = 45, p < .001). Further analysis indicated large heterogeneity (I 2 = 71.78, τ 2 = 0.10). In order to determine if there was a difference in effects for standardized versus unstandardized reading outcomes, we entered outcome type into the regression equation as a predictor. Outcome type explained a significant amount of heterogeneity (Qbetween = 21.02, df = 1, p < .001) and thus was a predictor of effects. Unstandardized outcomes were associated with large, positive effects (g = 0.83, SE = .014, p < .001; β = 0.73, p .001). For standardized outcomes, the mean effect was smaller and nonsignificant (see Table 3 ).
| Moderator | Q btwn | df | β | SE | g [95% CI] | k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome type | 21.02 *** | 1 | ||||
| Unstandardized | 0.73 *** | 0.14 | 0.83 [0.56, 1.10] | 9 | ||
| Standardized | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.09 [−0.02, 0.20] | 37 | ||
| Intervention Components | 3.27 | 2 | ||||
| Foundational | 0.20 | 0.13 | 0.36 [0.10, 0.61] | 20 | ||
| Comprehension | −0.17 | 0.26 | −0.01 [−0.52, 0.49] | 2 | ||
| Multicomponent | 0.16 * | 0.08 | 0.16 [0.01, 0.31] | 24 | ||
| Hours of Intervention | 2.77 | 2 | ||||
| 15 or less | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.24 [−0.07, 0.54] | 14 | ||
| 16 to 30 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.35 [0.07, 0.62] | 14 | ||
| More than 30 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.12 [−0.06, 0.29] | 18 | ||
| Group size | 1.32 | 2 | ||||
| 1 or 2 | −0.01 | 0.13 | 0.23 [−0.02, 0.49] | 20 | ||
| 4 to 7 | 0.25 ** | 0.08 | 0.25 [0.09, 0.40] | 22 | ||
| 9 or more | −0.23 | 0.20 | 0.01 [−0.39, 0.41] | 4 | ||
| Individualized | 0.83 | 1 | ||||
| Yes | −0.12 | 0.13 | 0.13 [−0.12, 0.40] | 12 | ||
| No | 0.25 *** | 0.07 | 0.25 [0.11, 0.39] | 34 |
Next, we determined the mean effect size and significance for each moderator when entered into the regression separately (see Table 3 ). Then we entered all moderators into the equation together to determine which moderators predicted unique variance in effect sizes. For intervention components, small, positive effects were found for multicomponent interventions (g = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p = .04) and were significantly different from outcomes for foundational and comprehension interventions (β = 0.16, SE = 0.08, p = .04). The effect sizes for foundational interventions, though also small and positive (g = 0.36, SE = .13, p < .01), did not predict unique effects when compared to interventions with other components. For group size, interventions implemented in instructional groups of four to seven predicted small effects (g = 0.25, SE = 0.08, p = .002; β = 0.25, p = .002). Interventions implemented for 16 to 30 hours were associated with small, positive effects (g = 0.35, SE = 0.14, p = .01), although these effects were not unique from interventions of different durations. Finally, interventions that were not individualized predicted small, positive effects (g = 0.25, SE = 0.07, p < .001; β = 0.25, p < .001) that were more consistent than effects from individualized interventions.
When all predictors were entered together into the regression equation, a significant portion of heterogeneity was explained (Qbetween = 24.00, df = 12, p = .02). Outcome type was the only predictor of unique effects on foundational outcomes with larger effects for unstandardized outcomes (β = 0.68, SE = 0.17, p < .001).
There were 53 effect sizes for comprehension outcomes. We used the same procedure to detect outliers (see Figure 3 ). We did not detect any outliers but followed the same procedure and used a moderator analysis to further investigate differences in effects.
Stem and leaf plot of comprehension outcome effect sizes
The estimated mean effect was g = 0.21 (p < .001, 95% CI [0.12, 0.30]) indicating a small positive, significant effect of reading interventions on comprehension reading outcomes. The Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity (Qtotal = 113.41, df = 52, p <.001). Further analysis indicated medium heterogeneity (I 2 = 54.15, τ 2 = 0.05). We used the same procedure to determine if there was a difference in effects by outcome type and found a significant amount of heterogeneity explained (Qbetween = 9.05, df = 1, p = .003). Outcome type was a significant predictor of effects. Both outcome types predicted significant effects with unstandardized outcomes predicting larger effects (g = 0.44, SE = 0.10, p < .001; β = 0.30, p = .003) than standardized outcomes (g = 0.13, SE = 0.05, p = .009; β = 0.13, p = .009).
We used the same procedure to calculate mean effect sizes and determine significance for each moderator (see Table 4 ). For intervention components, multicomponent interventions predicted small, positive effects (g = 0.17, SE = 0.06, p = .004; β = 0.17, p = .004). Though small, positive effects were also noted for comprehension interventions (g = 0.29, SE = 0.10, p = .003), these interventions did not predict unique effects when compared to interventions with different components. Group size predicted effects. Interventions implemented in groups of one or two students predicted the largest effects with medium, positive effects noted (g = 0.50, SE = 0.10, p .001; β = 0.41, p .001) while mean effect sizes for larger groups were nonsignificant. Interventions that included 15 or fewer hours of instruction predicted unique effects on comprehension outcomes with medium, positive effects noted (g = 0.44, SE = 0.12, p < .001; β = 0.28, p = .02); however, this finding is limited due to five of the 14 effect sizes for this moderator related to unstandardized outcomes. Interventions that more than 30 hours predicted unique effects with small, positive significant effects noted (g = 0.16, SE = 0.07, p = .01; β = 0.16, p = .01). Interventions that were not individualized predicted small, positive effects on comprehension outcomes that were more consistent than effects from individualized interventions (g = 0.25, SE = 0.05, p < .001; β = 0.25, p < .001).
| Moderator | Q btwn | df | β | SE | g [95% CI] | k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome type | 9.05 ** | 1 | ||||
| Unstandardized | 0.30 ** | 0.10 | 0.44 [0.24, 0.63] | 15 | ||
| Standardized | 0.13 ** | 0.05 | 0.13 [0.03, 0.23] | 38 | ||
| Intervention Components | 1.65 | 2 | ||||
| Foundational | 0.01 | 0.13 | 0.18 [−0.09, 0.44] | 10 | ||
| Comprehension | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.29 [0.10, 0.49] | 17 | ||
| Multicomponent | 0.17 ** | 0.06 | 0.17 [0.06, 0.29] | 26 | ||
| Hours of Intervention | 5.87 | 2 | ||||
| 15 or less | 0.28 * | 0.12 | 0.44 [0.20, 0.67] | 14 | ||
| 16 to 30 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.16 [−0.03, 0.35] | 18 | ||
| ore than 30 | 0.16 * | 0.07 | 0.16 [0.03, 0.29] | 21 | ||
| Group size | 16.34 *** | 2 | ||||
| 1 or 2 | 0.41 *** | 0.10 | 0.50 [0.30, 0.70] | 20 | ||
| 4 to 7 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.09 [−0.01, 0.20] | 29 | ||
| 9 or more | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.26 [−0.06, 0.59] | 4 | ||
| Individualized | 1.73 | 1 | ||||
| Yes | −0.13 | 0.10 | 0.12 [−0.07, 0.31] | 13 | ||
| No | 0.25 *** | 0.05 | 0.25 [0.15, 0.35] | 40 |
When all predictors were entered together into the regression equation, a significant portion of heterogeneity was explained (Qbetween = 28.86, df = 12, p = .004). Group size was the only unique predictor of comprehension outcomes with very small groups (one or two students) predicting positive, larger effects (β = 0.44, SE = 0.12, p < .001).
The studies included in the review were published over more than 3 decades (1988–2019), and other investigators have found year of publication moderated effects (Austin et al., 2019; Scammacca et al., 2015). Thus, we completed an exploratory analysis on the effect of year of publication on both foundational and comprehension outcomes by entering it into the regression equation as a predictor. We found year of publication explained a significant portion of heterogeneity and was a significant predictor of effect size for comprehension outcomes only with more recent studies associated with smaller effects (Qbetween = 5.20, df = 1, p = .02; β = −0.02, SE = 0.01, p = .02).
In order to assess publication bias, we used analysis of visual displays of effect sizes and a statistical analysis. First, we constructed funnel plots by plotting each study’s effect size against an estimate of the study size and visually analyzed the plots for symmetry. Then we used Egger’s linear regression method to statistically evaluate the symmetry of the plots by regressing the standardized effect sizes on their precisions (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997). An intercept including zero and symmetrical plots with an equal dispersal of studies on both sides of the overall mean effect would indicate no publication bias. An intercept not including zero and asymmetry in the plots would indicate the possible presence of publication bias. For foundational outcomes, the funnel plot did not show significant asymmetry (p = .27) indicating a lack of evidence of publication bias for these outcomes. For comprehension outcomes, the funnel plot did show significant asymmetry (p < .001). Visual inspection showed smaller studies smaller studies with low or negative effects missing indicating some evidence of publication bias. Thus, the reported effect size for comprehension outcomes may be inflated.
Wanzek et al. (2010) synthesized the results of reading intervention research for upper elementary students with reading difficulties or disabilities conducted from 1988 to 2007 and found small to moderate effects for foundational interventions, medium to large effects for comprehension interventions, and medium to large effects for multicomponent interventions. The goal of this study was to update and extend Wanzek’s et al.’s earlier review by conducting a meta-analytic review, including studies published since 2007, and examining intervention components and intensity as potential moderators of effects.
Overall, we found positive effects of upper elementary reading interventions for foundational and comprehension reading outcomes, but effects that were smaller than those described in Wanzek et al.’s (2010) review. When it comes to interpreting the magnitude of effects, Lipsey et al. (2012) recommend comparing effects to those obtained in similar interventions to interpret magnitude. The mean effects of our study may best be compared to the results of Scammacca et al.’s (2015) findings for reading interventions studies with fourth to 12 th grade students conducted from 2005–2011 since the majority of our effects come from studies published since 2005. Scammacca et al. report mean effects of g = 0.23 across all reading outcomes, g = 0.21 across all reading comprehension outcomes, and g = 0.13 across all standardized reading outcomes. We found effects of similar magnitude with overall mean effects from g = 0.21 to 0.22 for all reading outcomes and mean effects from standardized outcomes ranging from g = 0.09 to 0.13.
Also similar to Scammacca et al. (2015), we noted a trend of diminishing effects where the effects in this examination were smaller than those in past reviews focused on similar age students (Wanzek et al., 2010; Flynn et al., 2012). In fact, several recent, large scale, high quality studies included in this review reported null effects for standardized reading outcomes (Connor et al., 2018; Roberts et al., 2018; Vaughn et al., 2016; Vaughn, Roberts, Miciak, Taylor, & Fletcher, 2019; Wanzek & Roberts 2012). To further investigate this trend of diminishing effects, we examined if more recent publications were associated with smaller effects by analyzing year of publication as a potential moderator. We found more recent publications associated with smaller effects for comprehension outcomes only. These diminishing effects for comprehension may be due to increased study quality in more recent investigations (Austin et al., 2019).
However, we did not find a similar relation between year of publication and effect size for foundational outcomes. Descriptively, we did note several differences in participants from the that may be important to note alongside our findings as possible explanations. Across the studies from Wanzek’s earlier review, on average participants earned a standard score of 81 in foundational reading skills at pretest. In the more recent studies published since Wanzek’s earlier review, participants on average demonstrated stronger foundational reading skills with an average standard score of 90 at pretest. It’s possible that this improved performance was due to students receiving better reading instruction or more students receiving reading intervention from their schools. Others have noted improved classroom reading instruction as a potential explanation of diminishing effects (Lemons, Fuchs, Gilbert, & Fuchs, 2014). However, information included in studies on classroom reading instruction and school-based reading interventions was often limited.
Another possible explanation considers the population targeted in the more recent studies. Not only did the students in the more recent studies enter with better foundational reading skill, less of them were also identified with disabilities. Of the eight studies included in Wanzek’s earlier review, seven included a majority of participants with disabilities (see Table 2 ). Out of the 17 recent studies that gave information regarding participant disability status, only 3 studies included a majority of participants with identified disabilities.
It is critical to note, these explanations are speculative. More detailed examinations of school-provided interventions, core reading instruction, and more complete reporting on student disability or at-risk status are needed and may shed light on the reasons behind the diminishing effects for standardized reading outcomes in comparison to effects reported in previous meta-analytic reviews.
Foundational reading interventions predicted small, though not unique, effects (g = 0.36) on all foundational reading outcomes. Across the studies, there were mixed effects for interventions focused solely on fluency with three interventions predicting small to medium, positive effects and 3 predicting negative effects. There were more consistent, positive effects for foundational interventions that included a combination of foundational reading components. Keller et al., (2019) reported large, positive effects for unstandardized reading outcomes for an intervention package that included computerized and researcher-provided instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, fluency, text reading strategies along with mindfulness training. Torgesen et al., (2001) reported small, positive effects for standardized reading outcomes for an intervention that included researcher provided instruction focused on phonemic awareness, encoding, and decoding at the word level.
Interventions including decoding focused on multisyllabic words such as structural analysis (breaking a word down into decodable parts by using affixes or syllables) have been found by others to be effective for improving the reading outcomes of older struggling readers (Edmonds et al., 2009) and also showed promise in our review. Toste, Capin, Williams, Cho, & Vaughn (2019) implemented a rigorous high-quality study examining the effects of a foundational reading intervention focused on multi-syllabic word reading and showed the largest effects among the foundational reading interventions (ES = 0.51 to 0.75) and word reading outcomes (ES = 0.45 to 0.80). In addition, several multicomponent interventions that showed the strongest, positive effects for foundational reading outcomes included decoding instruction focused on the word-level and expanded to the text level (Miciak et al., 2018; O’Connor et al., 2002; Ring et al., 2012; Vaughn et al., 2019). This systematic integration of decoding skills is also recommended as an effective approach for younger struggling readers as it helps build generalization of skills to other contexts (Gersten et al., 2009).
Comprehension interventions also predicted small, but not unique, effects on comprehension outcomes (g = 0.29). Six interventions (Cirino et al., 2017; Fuchs et al., 2018; Mason, Davison, Hammer, Miller, & Glutting, 2013) where small to medium positive effects were noted for comprehension outcomes all focused on strategy instruction including main idea and summarization. Strategy instruction, where comprehension strategies are taught using direct and explicit instruction has shown strong evidence of effectiveness for improving students’ reading comprehension (Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010). Main idea and summarization, two specific strategies, have also been widely and effectively used to improve the comprehension of older struggling readers specifically (Solis et al., 2012).
Similar to Wanzek et al.’s (2010) earlier findings, multicomponent interventions predicted significant, positive and unique effects for both foundational and comprehension outcomes. Unlike Wanzek et al.’s earlier finding, the mean effect was small across both outcomes (g = 0.16 for foundational; g = 0.17 for comprehension). This finding differs from Scammacca et al.’s (2015) finding where comprehension interventions predicted the strongest effects.
The density of comprehension and vocabulary instruction in several intervention studies included in this review provides a possible explanation (Kim et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2019; Vadasy & Sanders, 2008; Wanzek et al., 2017). These multicomponent interventions may be better equipped to address the needs of the current population of struggling readers. In contrast to the studies from Wanzek’s earlier review where students tended to show more substantial deficits in foundational reading skills than comprehension, students in the more recent studies tended to show more substantial difficulties in comprehension than in foundational skills. In regards to the instruction included in the multicomponent interventions, although these interventions included instruction in foundational reading skills, there was also substantial, explicit and systematic comprehension and vocabulary instruction. For example, when instruction focused on text reading fluency, it frequently occurred alongside comprehension instruction. Therefore, the balance of components of instruction in these interventions may be better suited to the older struggling reader
In order to examine the effects of intervention intensity on reading outcomes, we examined hours of intervention, group size, and individualization as moderators. When examining effect of intervention duration and group size, we had mixed findings.
Group size was a significant moderator of comprehension outcomes. The smallest groups had the largest mean effects. This may be especially important as other investigators have noted comprehension as a difficult outcome to impact for older students (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2016, Vaughn et al., 2019, Miciak et al., 2018). Smaller groups may have afforded more opportunities for teacher and student conversations, more student specific feedback, and differentiation of instruction to meet individual student needs. Previous findings have also been mixed in the area of instructional group size. Wanzek et al. (2013) reported no moderation of student reading outcomes based on group size; however, group size could only be examined categorically with studies implementing instructional groups of 5 or less compared to studies implementing instructional groups of 6 or more. Flynn et al. (2012) noted small group instruction had a positive correlation with student outcomes, but the authors also noted interpretation is difficult because all of the studies with small groups also had other instructional components that may be related to student outcomes.
Longer duration interventions predicted significant effects for comprehension outcomes only, and these effects were small. In addition, this finding may be explained by intervention components as 15 out of the 19 interventions included were multicomponent. Recent syntheses of intervention research with students in older grade levels have also found the duration of intervention did not moderate student outcomes in the interventions (e.g., Flynn et al., 2012; Wanzek et al., 2013; Scammacca et al., 2015; though Scammacca found that older studies of shorter duration demonstrated higher effect sizes).
While there hasn’t been evidence that interventions with smaller groups or longer durations produce larger effects for older struggling readers broadly, there is evidence that these factors may matter for students with the most severe reading difficulties and disabilities, especially in accelerating foundational reading outcomes (e.g., Donegan, Wanzek, & Al Otaiba, 2020; Miciak et al., 2018; Sanchez & O’Connor, 2015). A few studies included in this review that implemented interventions for the longest durations (e.g., 60 hours or more) reported positive effects for students with severe reading difficulties and disabilities (Miciak et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2019; Torgesen et al., 2001). Our findings related to the intensity moderators may have been different had there been enough studies to examine this population only.
Interventions that were not individualized showed more consistent effects than those that were individualized for both foundational and comprehension outcomes. Interventions described as individualized vary across the literature, both in how the individualization occurs and how much of the instruction is individualized. In order to capture the effects of different types and levels of individualization, we chose to define it broadly. Reading interventions were identified as individualized if any aspect of instruction was initially planned and adjusted throughout the intervention based on student learning. Using this definition, we identified 11 interventions as individualized, the vast majority of which described only specific components of instruction (e.g., word reading instruction, fluency instruction) as individualized and none of which used data-based individualization, one specific method of systematic and iterative intervention adjustment based on student data shown to be effective for improving student reading outcomes (Jung, Mcmaster, Kunkel, Shin, & Stecker, 2018). It should be noted that student participants in four out of the 11 studies with individualized instruction demonstrated foundational reading skills at or below the 16 th percentile (Miciak et al., 2018; O’Connor et al., 2002; Therrien et al., 2006; Vaughn et al., 2016), and two studies included more than 20% of participants with disabilities (Kim et al., 2010; Reed et al., 2019). Therefore, it’s possible that these interventions were targeted to students with more significant needs which may account for the smaller effects.
As often is the case with research, many questions remain. First, it appears a trend of diminishing effects is continuing with smaller effects for standardized outcomes found in this review of recent reading intervention studies than in past reports. Improvements in school-provided core reading instruction and intervention and changing reading profiles of participating students offer possible explanations. However, more detailed examinations are needed to invest in either of these hypotheses. Second, there did not seem to be a systematic relationship between intervention duration and effects. Longer interventions may have been targeted to students with more intensive needs which may have impacted effects. One study (Miciak et al., 2018) did offer preliminary evidence that longer interventions may be more effective than shorter ones for students with severe reading difficulties and disabilities. More experimental investigations of the impact of intervention duration for students in the grade range are needed in order for conclusions to be drawn. In addition, we found little evidence that individualized components or interventions offer added value. However, our investigation did not consider if these effects may have differed for students with the most severe reading difficulties and none of our studies used data-based individualization, one particular method of individualization shown to be effective. Finally, we did find some evidence of publication bias for comprehension outcomes. Although it appeared minimal, this may have resulted some inflation of mean effects for comprehension outcomes.
In summary, the results of this review suggest overall positive effects of reading intervention for upper elementary students; smaller, nonsignificant effects for standardized foundational reading outcomes; and small significant effects for standardized comprehension outcomes. According to the results of this review, multicomponent interventions show promise for improving foundational and comprehension reading outcomes. In addition, interventions implemented in very small groups may be an effective way to increase intensity and improve comprehension outcomes.
This research was supported in part by Grant H325H140001 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education and by Award Number R01HD091232 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. Department of Education.
Rachel E. Donegan, Northern Illinois University.
Jeanne Wanzek, Vanderbilt University.
* Denotes studies included in this meta-analytic review
Austin C, Wanzek J, Scammacca N, Vaughn S, Gesel S, Donegan RE, & Englemann M (2019). The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: A meta-analysis . Exceptional Children , 85 , 347–366. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
* Benner G (2007). The relative impact of remedial reading instruction on the basic reading skills of students with emotional disturbance and learning disabilities . Journal of Direct Instruction , 7 , 1–15. Retrieved from https://www.nifdi.org/research/journal-of-di [Google Scholar]
* Bennett S, Calderone C, Dedrick R, & Gunn A (2015). “Do I have to leave?” Beyond linear text: Struggling readers’ motivation with an innovative musical program . Reading Improvement , 52 , 51–60. Retrieved from https://www.projectinnovation.com/reading-improvement.html [Google Scholar]
Boardman AG, Roberts G, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Murray CS, & Kosnovich M (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief . Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. [Google Scholar]
Bryant DP, Goodwin M, Bryant BR, & Higgins K (2003). Vocabulary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the research . Learning Disability Quarterly , 26 , 117–128. 10.2307/1593594 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Cirino P, Miciak J, Gerst E, Barnes M, Vaughn S, Child A, … Willcutt E (2017). Executive function, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension: A training study . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 50 , 450–467. 10.1177/0022219415618497 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Cohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
Compton D, Fuchs D, Fuchs L, Elleman A, & Gilbert J (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability . Learning and Individual Differences , 18 , 329–337. 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Connor C, Phillips B, Kim Y, Lonigan C, Kaschak M, Crowe E, … Al Otaiba S (2018). Examining the efficacy of targeted component interventions on language and literacy for third and fourth graders who are at risk of comprehension difficulties . Scientific Studies of Reading , 22 , 462–484. 10.1080/10888438.2018.1481409 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Das J, Hayward V, Georgiou G, Janzen T, & Boora N (2008). Comparing the effectiveness of two reading intervention programs for children with reading disabilities . Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology , 7 , 199–222. 10.1891/194589508787381836 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Das JP, Mishra RK, & Pool JE (1995). An experiment on cognitive remediation of word-reading difficulty . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 28 , 66–79. 10.1177/002221949502800201 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Denton CA, Tolar TD, Fletcher JM, Barth AE, Vaughn S, & Francis DJ (2013). Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders . Journal of Educational Psychology , 105 , 633–648. 10.1037/a0032581 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Donegan RE, Wanzek J, & Al Otaiba S (2020). Effects of a reading intervention implemented at differing intensities for upper elementary students . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 35 ( 2 ), 62–71. 10.1111/ldrp.12218 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Duke NK (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade . Reading Research Quarterly , 35 , 202–224. 10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Duke NK, & Roberts KL (2010). The genre-specific nature of reading comprehension and the case of informational text. In Wyse D, Andrews R, & Hoffman J (Eds.), The international handbook of English language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). London, UK: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203863091.ch7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Edmonds M, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Reutebuch C, Cable A, Tackett K, & Schnakenberg J (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers . Review of Educational Research , 79 , 262–300. 10.3102/0034654308325998 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, & Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test . British Medical Journal , 315 , 629–634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Elleman AM, Lindo EJ, Morphy P, & Compton DL (2009) The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis , Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 2 , 1–44. 10.1080/19345740802539200 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Flynn L, Zheng X, & Swanson H (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta‐analysis of intervention research . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 27 , 21–32. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Fuchs D, Hendricks E, Walsh M, Fuchs L, Gilbert J, Zhang Tracy W, … Peng P (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near‐transfer . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 33 , 11–23. 10.1111/ldrp.12162 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, and Tilly WD (2008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades . A practice guide. (NCEE 2009–4045). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
Gough P, & Tunmer W (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability . Remedial and Special Education , 7 , 6–10. [Google Scholar]
Hiebert EH (2008). The (mis)match between texts and students who depend onschools to become literate. In Hiebert EH & Sailors M (Eds.), Finding the right texts: What works for beginning and struggling readers (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
Jung P, Mcmaster K, Kunkel A, Shin J, & Stecker P (2018). Effects of data‐based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta‐analysis . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 33 , 144–155. 10.1111/ldrp.12172 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kamil ML, Borman GD, Dole J, Kral CC, Salinger T, and Torgesen J (2008). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008–4027) . Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc.
* Keller J, Ruthruff E, & Keller P (2019). Mindfulness and speed testing for children with learning disabilities: Oil and water? Reading & Writing Quarterly , 35 , 154–178. 10.1080/10573569.2018.1524803 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Kim J, Capotosto L, Hartry A, & Fitzgerald R (2011). Can a mixed-method literacy intervention improve the reading achievement of low-performing elementary school students in an after-school program? Results from a randomized controlled trial of READ 180 Enterprise . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 33 , 183–201. 10.3102/0162373711399148 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Kim J, Samson J, Fitzgerald R, & Hartry A (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 23 , 1109–1129. 10.1007/s11145-009-9198-2 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Leach JM, Scarborough H, & Rescorla L (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities . Journal of Educational Psychology , 95 , 211–224. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.211 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lee J, & Yoon S (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 50 , 213–224. 10.1177/0022219415605194 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lemons C, Fuchs D, Gilbert J, & Fuchs L (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research . Educational Researcher , 43 , 242–252. 10.3102/0013189X14539189 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lipka O, Lesaux N, & Siegel L (2006). Retrospective analyses of the reading development of Grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39 , 364–378. 10.1177/00222194060390040901 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lipsey MW, Puzio K, Yun C, Hebert MA, Steinka-Fry K, Cole MW, Roberts M, Anthony KS, Busick MD (2012). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research. Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions into More Readily Interpretable Forms . (NCSER 2013–3000). Retrieved from http://ies.edu.gov/ncser.
* Mason L, Davison M, Hammer C, Miller C, & Glutting J (2013). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention . Reading and Writing , 26 , 1133–1158. 10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Mathes PG, & Fuchs LS (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction in special education resource rooms . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 8 , 233–243. [Google Scholar]
* Miciak J, Roberts G, Taylor W, Solis M, Ahmed Y, Vaughn S, & Fletcher J (2018). The effects of one versus two years of intensive reading intervention implemented with late elementary struggling readers . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 33 , 24–36. 10.1111/ldrp.12159 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nation K, & Snowling M (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The validity and utility of current measures of reading skill . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 67 , 359–370. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01250.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* O’Connor RE, Bell KM, Harty KR, Larkin LK, Sackor SM, & Zigmond N (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty . Journal of Educational Psychology , 94 , 474–485. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.474 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
O’Connor RE, Fulmer D, Harty KR, & Bell KM (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 38 , 440–455. 10.1177/00222194050380050701 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* O’Connor RE, White A, & Swanson HL (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension . Exceptional Children , 74 , 31–46. 10.1177/001440290707400102 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pearson PD, Palincsar AS, Biancarosa G, & Berman AI (Eds.). (2020). Reaping the Rewards of the Reading for Understanding Initiative . Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. 10.31094/2020/2 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pyle N, & Vaughn S (2012). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students . Psychology in the Schools , 49 , 273–284. 10.1002/pits.21593 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Reed D, Aloe A, Reeger A, & Folsom J (2019). Defining summer gain among elementary students with or at risk for reading disabilities . Exceptional Children , 85 , 413–431. 10.1177/0014402918819426 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Ring J, Barefoot L, Avrit K, Brown S, & Black J (2013). Reading fluency instruction for students at risk for reading failure . Remedial and Special Education , 34 ( 2 ), 102–112. 10.1177/0741932511435175 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Ritchey K, Silverman R, Montanaro E, Speece D, & Schatschneider C (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for at-risk fourth-grade students . Exceptional Children , 78 , 318–334. 10.1177/001440291207800304 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Ritchey K, Palombo K, Silverman R, & Speece D (2017). Effects of an informational text reading comprehension intervention for fifth-grade students . Learning Disability Quarterly , 40 , 68–80. 10.1177/0731948716682689 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Roberts G, Capin P, Roberts G, Miciak J, Quinn J, Vaughn S, … Levin J (2018). Examining the effects of afterschool reading interventions for upper elementary struggling readers . Remedial and Special Education , 39 , 131–143. 10.1177/0741932517750818 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sanchez VM, & O’Connor RE (2015). Building tier 3 intervention for long‐term slow growers in grades 3–4: A pilot study . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 30 ( 4 ), 171–181. 10.1111/ldrp.12085 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Scammacca N, Roberts G, Vaughn S, & Stuebing K (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011 . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 48 , 369–390. 10.1177/0022219413504995 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shanahan T, Callison K, Carriere C, Duke NK, Pearson PD, Schatschneider C, & Torgesen J (2010). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010–4038) . Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides.
Shankweiler D, Lundquist E, Katz L, Stuebing K, Fletcher J, Brady S, … Shaywitz B (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties . Scientific Studies of Reading , 3 , 69–94. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Solis M, Ciullo S, Vaughn S, Pyle N, Hassaram B, & Leroux A (2012). Reading comprehension interventions for middle school students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of 30 years of research . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 45 , 327–340. 10.1177/0022219411402691 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Swanson H, & O’Connor R (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on the reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 42 , 548–575. 10.1177/0022219409338742 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Thames D, Reeves C, Kazelskis R, York K, Boling C, Newell K, & Wang Y (2008). Reading comprehension: Effects of individualized, integrated language arts as a reading approach with struggling readers . Reading Psychology , 29 , 86–115. 10.1080/02702710701853625 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Therrien WJ, Wickstrom K, & Jones K (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 21 , 89–97. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KKS, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 34 , 33–58. 10.1177/002221940103400104 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Toste J, Capin P, Williams K, Cho E, & Vaughn S (2019). Replication of an experimental study investigating the efficacy of a multisyllabic word reading intervention with and without motivational beliefs training for struggling readers . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 , 45–58. 10.1177/0022219418775114 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Vadasy P, & Sanders E (2008). Benefits of repeated reading intervention for low-achieving fourth- and fifth-grade students . Remedial and Special Education , 29 , 235–249. 10.1177/0741932507312013 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Vaughn S, Roberts G, Miciak J, Taylor P, & Fletcher J (2019). Efficacy of a word- and text-based intervention for students with significant reading difficulties . Journal of Learning Disabilities , 52 ( 1 ), 31–44. 10.1177/0022219418775113 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Vaughn S, Solís M, Miciak J, Taylor W, & Fletcher J (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties . Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 9 ( Suppl 1 ), 23–44. 10.1080/19345747.2015.1126386 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vaughn S, Wanzek J, Wexler J, Barth A, Cirino P, Fletcher JM…., & Francis DJ (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older student with reading difficulties . Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 23 , 931–956. 10.1007/s11145-009-9183-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Vaughn S, Wexler J, Roberts G, Barth A, Cirino P, Romain M, … Denton C (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities . Exceptional Children , 77 , 391–407. 10.1177/001440291107700401 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Wanzek J, & Roberts G (2012). Reading Interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties . Learning Disability Quarterly , 35 , 90–101. 10.1177/0731948711434047 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Wanzek J, Petscher Y, Otaiba S, Rivas B, Jones F, Kent S, … Mehta P (2017). Effects of a year long supplemental reading intervention for students with reading difficulties in fourth grade . Journal of Educational Psychology , 109 , 1103–1119. 10.1037/edu0000184 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murray CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3 . Review of Educational Research , 83 , 163–195. 10.3102/0034654313477212 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wanzek J, Wexler J, Vaughn S, & Ciullo S (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: a synthesis of 20 years of research . Reading and Writing , 23 , 889–912. 10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
* Xin JF, & Rieth H (2001). Video-assisted vocabulary instruction for elementary school students with learning disabilities . Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual , 12 , 87–103. [Google Scholar]
* Young C, Mohr K, & Rasinski T (2014). Reading together: A successful reading fluency intervention . Literacy Research and Instruction , 54 , 1–15. 10.1080/19388071.2014.97667 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zimmermann L, Reed D, & Aloe A (2019). A meta-analysis of non-repetitive reading fluency interventions for students with reading difficulties . Remedial and Special Education . Advance online publication. 10.1177/074193251985505 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
