An Examination of the Efficacy of a Multitiered Intervention on Early Reading Outcomes for First Grade Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 602-621

  Fien, Hank ^a   Smith, Jean Louise M ^a   Smolkowski, Keith ^b   Baker, Scott K ^a   Nelson, Nancy J ^a   Chaparro, Erin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b Oregon Research Group   (United States)

Author keywords

Efficacy; Intervention; Reading; Treatment

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DYSLEXIA; EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING;

CHILD; DYSLEXIA; EARLY INTERVENTION (EDUCATION); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); READING;

EID: 84943171381     PISSN: 00222194     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022219414521664     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. S.K.BakerH.FienD.L.Baker (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–20.
2. S.K.BakerK.SmolkowskiR.KatzH.FienJ.R.SeeleyE.J.Kame’enuiC.T.Beck (2008). Reading fluency as a predictor of reading proficiency in low-performing, high-poverty schools. School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.
3. A.E.Barry (2005). How attrition impacts the internal and external validity of longitudinal research. Journal of School Health, 75, 267–270. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2005.tb06687.x
4. H.S.BloomJ.M.BosS.-W.Lee (1999). Using cluster random assignment to measure program impacts. Evaluation Review, 23, 445–469. doi:10.1177/0193841x9902300405
5. J.BransfordA.BrownR.Corking (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
6. D.CarnineE.Kameenui (1992). Higher order thinking: Designing curriculum for mainstreamed studentsAustin, TX: PRO-ED.
7. L.P.CaseD.L.SpeeceR.SilvermanK.D.RitcheyC.SchatschneiderD.H.CooperD.. Jacobs (2010). Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 402–417. doi:10.1177/0022219409355475
8. B.ChambersR.E.SlavinN.A.MaddenP.AbramiM.K.LoganR.Gifford (2011). Small-group, computer-assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for struggling first and second grades. Elementary School Journal, 111, 625–640. doi:10.1086/659035
9. T.J.ChristB.SilberglittS.YeoD.Cormier (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39, 447–462.
10. J.Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
11. D.L.ComptonD.FuchsL.FuchsJ.D.Bryant (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and proceduresJournal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394
12. C.M.ConnorS.B.PiastaB.FishmanS.GlasneyC.SchatschneiderE.CroweF.J.. Morrison (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child × instruction interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80, 77–100. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
13. M.D.CoyneE.J.Kame’enuiD.W.Carnine (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
14. R.A.CribbieJ.Jamieson (2000). Structural equation models and the regression bias for measuring correlates of change. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 893–907. doi:10.1177/00131640021970970
15. S.L.DenoL.S.Fuchs (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19, 1–16.
16. A.DonnerN.Klar (1996). Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 435–439. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00511-0
17. J.C.Ebaugh (2000). The effects of fluency instruction on the literacy development of at-risk first graders (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(06A), 0072.
18. K.A.Ericsson (2008). Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: A general overview. Academic Emergency Medicine, 15, 988–994. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x
19. G.M.FitzmauriceN.M.LairdJ.H.Ware (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
20. D.FuchsD.ComptonL.FuchsJ.BryantG.Davis (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21, 413–436. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9
21. L.S.FuchsD.FuchsC.L.HamlettL.WalzG.Germann (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
22. A.Gawande (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
23. R.Gersten (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. Elementary School Journal, 100, 37–56.
24. R.M.GerstenD.ChardS.K.Baker (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices: A historical perspective on relevant research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 444–457.
25. R.M.GerstenD.ComptonC.M.ConnorJ.DiminoL.SantoroS.Linan-ThompsonW.D.Tilly (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades: A practice guide (NCE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
26. R.H.GoodR.Kaminski (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
27. F.M.GreshamD.L.MacMillanM.E.Beebe-FrankenbergerK.M.Bocian (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198–205. doi:10.1207/sldrp1504_4
28. B.GunnA.BiglanK.SmolkowskiD.Ary (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 34, 90–104. doi:10.1177/002246690003400204
29. B.GunnK.SmolkowskiA.BiglanC.Black (2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. Journal of Special Education, 36, 69–79. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020201
30. B.GunnK.SmolkowskiA.BiglanC.BlackJ.Blair (2005). Fostering the development of reading skill through supplemental instruction: Results for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. Journal of Special Education, 39, 66–85. doi:10.1177/00224669050390020301
31. Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: Author.
32. J.E.HasbrouckG.Tindal (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2-5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41–44.
33. J.HasbrouckG.A.Tindal (2006) Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.
34. L.V.Hedges (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. doi:10.3102/10769986006002107
35. L.V.HedgesE.C.Hedberg (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60–87. doi:10.3102/0162373707299706
36. D.R.HillS.A.KingC.J.LemonsJ.N.Partanen (2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional alignment in response to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 116–124. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00357.x
37. J.J.Hox (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Institute of Education Sciences. (2008). RFA: Request for applications: Special education research grants. CFDA Number: 84.324A. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
39. J.R.JenkinsJ.PeytonE.A.SandersP.Vadasy (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–85. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0801_4
40. E.J.Kame’enuiD.C.SimmonsM.D.D.Coyne (2000). Schools as host environments: Toward a school-wide reading improvement model. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 31–52. doi:10.1007/s11881-000-0016-4
41. E.J.Kame’enuiD.SimmonsM.CoyneB.Harn (2003). Institute on beginning reading: Day 1. Eugene, OR: IDEA.
42. R.KaminskiR.H.Good (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
43. M.R.KerinsD.TrotterL.Schoenbrodt (2010). Effects of tier 2 intervention on literacy measures: Lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26, 287–302.
44. J.R.LandisG.G.Koch (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
45. J.E.LennonC.Slesinski (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a screening and intervention program for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 28, 353–364.
46. R.J.A.LittleD.B.Rubin (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
47. S.M.LoftusM.D.CoyneD.B.McCoachR.ZipoliP.C.Pullen (2010). Effects of a supplemental vocabulary intervention on the word knowledge of kindergarten students at risk for language and literacy difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 124–136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00310.x
48. C.J.M.MaasJ.J.Hox (2004a). The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 46, 427–440. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2003.08.006
49. C.J.M.MaasJ.J.Hox (2004b). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 127–137. doi:10.1046/j.0039-0402.2003.00252.x
50. P.G.MathesC.A.DentonJ.M.FletcherJ.L.AnthonyD.J.FrancisC.Schatschneider (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. doi:10.1598/rrq.40.2.2
51. P.McCardleH.S.ScarboroughH.W.Catts (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 230–239. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00023
52. K.L.McMasterL.S.FuchsD.L.Compton (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
53. D.M.MurrayP.J.HannanS.P.PalsR.G.McCowenW.L.BakerJ.L.Blitstein (2006). A comparison of permutation and mixed-model regression methods for the analysis of simulated data in the context of a group-randomized trial. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 375–388. doi:10.1002/sim.2233
54. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
55. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities: A report prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities representing eleven national and international organizations. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld
56. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications
57. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58. N.J.Nelson-WalkerH.FienD.B.KostyK.SmolkowskiJ.L.M.SmithS.K.Baker (2013). Evaluating the effects of a systematic intervention on first-grade teachers’ explicit reading instruction. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 36, 215–230.
59. R.E.O’ConnorK.R.HartyD.Fulmer (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538. doi:10.1177/00222194050380060901
60. R.E.O’ConnorJ.R.Jenkins (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0302_4
61. C.A.Perfetti (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. doi:10.1080/10888430701530730
62. P.C.PullenE.D.TuckwillerT.R.KonoldK.L.MaynardM.D.Coyne (2010). A tiered intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 110–123. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00309.x
63. R.RosnowR.Rosenthal (2008). Assessing the effect size of outcome research. In A.NezuC.Nezu (Eds.), Evidence-based outcome research: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions (pp. 379–401). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64. SAS Institute. (2009). SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
65. D.ScanlonL.GelzheiserF.VellutinoC.SchatschneiderJ.Sweeney (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 346–359. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.002
66. H.S.Scarborough (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B.K.ShapiroP.J.AccardoA.J.Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
67. J.L.SchaferJ.W.Graham (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147
68. C.M.SchueleL.M.JusticeS.Q.CabellK.KnightonB.KingeryM.W.Lee (2008). Field-based evaluation of two-tiered instruction for enhancing kindergarten phonological awareness. Early Education and Development, 19, 726–752. doi:10.1080/10409280802375299
69. W.R.ShadishT.D.CookD.T.Campbell (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
70. M.R.Shinn (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.
71. K.SmolkowskiB.Gunn (2012). Reliability and validity of the Classroom Observations of Student–Teacher Interactions (COSTI) for kindergarten reading instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 316–328.
72. C.E.SnowM.S.BurnsP.Griffin (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
73. D.L.SpeeceC.MillsK.D.RitcheyE.Hillman (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223–233. doi:10.1177/002246690303600403
74. J.K.Torgesen (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
75. P.F.VadasyE.A.SandersJ.A.Peyton (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 364–380. doi:10.1177/00222194050380041401
76. G.van Belle (2008). Statistical rules of thumb (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
77. S.VaughnJ.WanzekA.L.WoodruffS.Linan-Thompson (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D.HaagerJ.KlingnerS.Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
78. Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center. (2005a). Grade 1 lesson maps to accompany professional development for use of Houghton Mifflin reading in schools with high risk students. Eugene, OR: Author.
79. Western Regional Reading First Technical Assistance Center. (2005b). Instructional routine templates 1–17. Eugene, OR: Author.
80. What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). What Works Clearinghouse: Procedures and standards handbook (Version 2.0). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
81. R.W.Woodcock (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.