Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

Reading and Writing

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 299-316

  Tunmer, William E ^a  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 43049168347     PISSN: 09224777     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414-431.
2. Calfee, R. (1983). The mind of the dyslexic. Annals of Dyslexia, 33, 9-28.
3. Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Whittock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 804-849). New York: MacMillan.
4. Carroll, J. M., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Stevenson, J. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 913-923.
5. Catts, H., Kamhi, A. (2005). Language and reading disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson.
6. Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery. Auckland: Heinemann.
7. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394-409.
8. Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447-466.
9. Denton, C. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229-251). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
10. Deschler, D. D., Mellard, D. F., Tollefson, J. M., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Research topics in responsiveness to intervention: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 483-484.
11. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A Handbook (pp. 135-154). Oxford: Blackwell.
12. Ehri, L., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 135-163.
13. Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545-552.
14. Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1-18.
15. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
16. Foorman, B. R., Seals, L. M., Anthony, J., & Pollard-Durodala, S. (2003). A vocabulary enrichment program for third and fourth grade African-American students: Description, implementation, and impact. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 419-441). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
17. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Steubing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.
18. Fuch, D., & Fuch, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
19. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach. In H. L. Swanson, H. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 431-449). New York: The Guilford Press.
20. Fuchs, D., & Young, C.L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8-30.
21. Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., Anderson, R., Cunningham, P. M., Gaskins, R. M., Schommer, M., the teachers of the Benchmark School (1988). A metacognitive approach to phonics: Using what you know to decode what you don't know. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 36-41.
22. Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99-108.
23. Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179-196.
24. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
25. Hatcher, P. J., Goetz, K., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., Gibbs, S., & Smith, G. (2006). Evidence for the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 351-367.
26. Hatcher, P. J., & Hulme, C. (1999). Phonemes, rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of children's responsiveness to remedial reading instruction: Evidence from a longitudinal intervention study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 130-153.
27. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skill: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.
28. Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G. B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1-19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
29. Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 456-472.
30. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
31. Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211-224.
32. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578-588.
33. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182.
34. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Compton, D. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445-463.
35. Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681-693.
36. Nation, K. (2005). Children's reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248-265). Oxford: Blackwell.
37. O'Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440-455.
38. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.
39. Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1-19.
40. Scarborough, H. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H. W. Catts, & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218.
42. Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A., & Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dyslexia is continuous: Individual differences in the precursors of reading skill. Child Development, 74, 358-373.
43. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 340-406.
44. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
45. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile for children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 1-30.
46. Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classification of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
47. Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355-382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
48. Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521-537). Oxford: Blackwell.
49. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001a). 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, 78.
50. Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001b). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333-355). Timonium, MD: York Press.
51. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.
52. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1996). A developmental model of dyslexia: Can the construct be saved? Dyslexia, 2, 179-189.
53. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1998). Language prediction skill, phonological recoding ability and beginning reading. In C. Hulme, & R.M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorder (pp. 33-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2003). The reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention. As good as it gets? Reading Psychology, 24, 337-360.
55. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2004). Reading recovery: Distinguishing myth from reality. In R. M. Joshi (Ed.), Dyslexia: Myths, misconceptions, and some practical application (pp. 99-114). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.
56. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2006). Metalinguistic abilities, phonological recoding skills, and the use of sentence context in beginning reading development: A longitudinal study. In R. M. Joshi, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 617-635). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2007). Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers: A longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia, 13, 42-66.
58. Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2003). Preventing negative Matthew effects in at-risk readers: A retrospective study. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 121-163). Timonium, MD: York Press.
59. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-158.
60. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In M. Joshi, & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 135-173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
61. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 69, 391-409.
62. Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification in poor, normally developing readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 571-608). New York: Longman.
63. Vellutino, F. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2005). Developmental dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 362-378). Oxford: Blackwell.
64. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two year follow-up of difficult-to-remediate, readily remediated poor readers. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 73-120). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
65. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
66. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
67. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157-169.