Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 318-334.

2012 CouncilforExceptional Children.

Effects of a Tier 2
Supplemental Reading
Intervention for At-Risk
Fourth-Grade Students
KRISTEN D. RITCHEY
University of Delaware
REBECCA D. SILVERMAN
ELIZABETH A. MONTANARO
DEBORAH L. SPEECE
University of Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SCHATSCHNEIDER
Elorida State University

ABSTRACT: This study investigated a Tier 2 intervention in the context of a response-to-intervention (RTI) model for 123 fourth-grade students identified as having a high probability of reading
failure. A randomized control trial was used to evaluate the effects of a 24-session multicomponent
supplemental intervention targeting fluency and expository comprehension of science texts. Intervention students performed significantly higher on science knowledge and comprehension strategy
knowledge and use, but not on word reading, fluency, or other measures of reading comprehension.
Moderators of intervention effects were also examined; children at higher risk in the intervention
condition appeared to benefit more in comparison to lower probability children in intervention
and compared to higher probability children in the control condition.

or too many children, reading

fication and intervention have been successful in

failure is a persistent problem.

The number of fourth-grade
students reading below grade
level remains unacceptably
high. The National Assessment of Educational
Progress has reported that 34% of fourth-grade
students in the United States perform below basic
levels in reading (National Genter for Education
Statistics, 2007). Although efforts in early identi-

addressing the needs of younger students, less attention has been devoted to children in later elementary grades with late emerging reading
problems or who have persistent reading problems (Catts, Hogan, & Adolf, 2005; Compton,
Fuchs, Fuchs, EUeman, & Gilbert, 2008; Leach,
Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003). For many children, this means that they either encounter new
problems in reading as they get older or continue

318

Spring 2012

to exhibit reading problems that were apparent

earlier in their development.

ing the treatment group on fltiency but not on a

broad measure of reading that included word
identification and passage comprehension. Their
intervention was delivered over 50 sessions of 10
R E S P O N S E TO
INTERVENTION
to 15 min each (8-12 hr of instruction). O'Connor and colleagues (2002) provided approxiEffective and appropriate interventions are necesmately 36 hr of instruction to two experimental
sary to meet the needs of students in upper elegroups who received instruction in phonological
mentary grades. Recent efforts to develop
awareness, phonics, reading text, fiuency, and
alternative identification and intervention models
comprehension. The authors manipulated the
for students with learning disabilities have led to
reading level of text used for instruction. Both
models such as response to intervention (RTI). In
treatment groups outperformed the control group
RTI models, universal screening is used to idenon second-grade level fluency, word reading, and
tify students who may be at risk. These students
comprehension measures; the groups did not difreceive tiered supplemental instrtiction that infer on listening comprehension or fluency in
creases in intensity as needed. In most models of
fourth-grade level text.
RTI, general education classroom instruction is
considered Tier 1 and students who are identified
as at risk receive Tier 2 instruction, which inStudies of students at the early
cludes supplemental intervention for small groups
elementary level have indicated the
of children several days per week. Students who
potential for multiple component
are "nonresponsive" to Tier 2 instruction may
interventions for Tier 2 and provided
continue in Tier 2 instruction or receive more intensive, individualized reading instruction (i.e..
some general guidelines about the
Tier 3).
intensity of instruction (frequency and
The extant literature on RTI focuses on the
early grades (e.g., O'Connor, Harty, & Fulmer,
2005; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman,
2003). These studies of students at the early elementary level have indicated the potential for
multiple component interventions for Tier 2 and
provided some general guidelines about the intensity of instruction (frequency and duration) that
might be appropriate. However, in these studies
the focus is on word level and fluency skills rather
than vocabulary or comprehension instruction.
Older students often require attention to multiple
reading domains. As such, for students in upper
elementary grades and above, little is known
about the optimal instructional content for a Tier
2 reading intervention.
There are few studies of multiple component
interventions for students in fourth and fifth
grades. In a recent review of literature on reading
interventions, Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, and
CiuUo (2010) identified only two intervention
studies targeting more than one reading domain.
Therrien, Wickstrom, and Jones (2006) focused
their experimental study on fluency and comprehension and reported significant differences favor-

Exceptional Children

duration) that might be appropriate.

Given the paucity of studies for upper elementary-grade students, adoption of a validated
program within an RTI framework is challenging
for this age range. The two studies (O'Connor et
al., 2002; Therrien et al., 2006) reviewed by
Wanzek et al. (2010) used narrative text. As children advance through the elementary grades they
are increasingly confronted with the need to access and comprehend expository text. The complexity of expository text may pose a particular
challenge for children who have reading difficulties. We did not identify any experimental studies
that have used a multicomponent intervention
with a focus on expository text for upper elementary struggling readers.

C O M P O N E N T S

OF

I N T E R V E N T I O N S

TIER
FOR

E L E M E N T A R Y - G R A D E

2
UPPER
READERS

Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading

instruction. The focus of remediation in older
319

readers can be complex because poor comprehension can be caused by deficits in decoding, vocabulary. Fluency, tnotivation, or background
knowledge, as well as a lack oF strategic be? lviors
For monitoring and repairing misunderst;inding
(Snow, 2002). Because readers may struggle in
more than one area, a multicomponent intervention may be most appropriate within Tier 2.
Results From previous studies have provided evidence that multicomponent interventions may be
eFFective For older struggling readers (O'Connor
et al., 2002; Therrien et al., 2006). These findings
are supported by a recent meta-analysis oF interventions For older readers indicating that multicomponent interventions can result in significant
gains (Edmonds et al., 2009).
Although some upper elementary grade children have not mastered beginning decoding skills,
a much larger group oF students lacks the decoding strategies necessary to attack multisyllabic
words (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2003). Instruction in decoding multisyllabic words can
have positive outcomes For struggling readers in
Fourth through eighth grades, including improved
word recognition and comprehension (Diliberto,
Beattie, Flowers, & Algozzine, 2009). Breaking
multisyllabic words into smaller parts can also assist readers in determining the meaning oF unFamiliar words by using prefixes, suFfixes, and root
words to determine meaning (Cunningham,
1998). Vocabulary knowledge, including morphological awareness, is related to reading comprehension (Beck, PerFetti, & McKeown, 1982;
Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006). Comprehension depends on understanding the meanings oF
between 90% and 95% oF the words in a text
(Nagy & Scott, 2000). Beck, McKeown, and
Kucan (2002) suggested teaching students useFul
words that Frequently appear across content areas,
presenting them in context, providing studentFriendly definitions, and repeatedly exposing students to words.
Students also need to be able to read fluently.
Fluent oral reading has been shown to have a
strong positive relationship with reading comprehension (Pinnell et al., 1995). Repeated reading is
a commonly used intervention For improving
reading fluency (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002).
Significant gains in fluency and comprehension
have been Found using repeated reading interven320

tions (O'Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007;

Therrien & Hughes, 2008).
Students in upper elementary grades are also
Faced with the challenge oF the shiFt From reading
primarily narrative to reading primarily expository texts (Grigg, Daane, Jin, & Campbell,
2003). In particular, struggling readers have diFficulty identiFying the most important inFormation
presented in a text (Rapp, van den Broek, McMaster, Kendeou, & Espin, 2007). These students require explicit instruction and modeling in
the use oF multiple comprehension strategies
(Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). EFFective interventions For improving expository
comprehension have included teaching text structures (Englert & Mariage, 1991), selF-monitoring
(Graves, 1986), and understanding questionanswer relationships (Raphael & Au, 2005).
In designing an intervention For readers who
may have been struggling For several years, it is essential to include components aimed at increasing
motivation. Students who have experienced repeated Failure are likely to have less motivation to
read or put eFFort into learning new strategies For
reading (MinskoFF, 2005; Morgan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, & Fuchs, 2008). Guthrle, Wigfield,
Barbosa et al. (2004) and Guthrie, Wigfield, &C
Perencevich (2004) used an approach to reading
Instruction called concept-oriented reading instruc-

tion, which increased both reading comprehension and motivation in typically developing
children. Motivational components oF this approach include (a) embedding reading instruction
within a content area, such as science; (b) selecting interesting texts; (c) providing opportunities
For students to make choices; and (d) including
hands-on activities related to the texts.
In sum, designing an intervention For students in upper elementary grades is complex. It
must include strategies For reading multisyllabic
words, vocabulary instruction in context, and
reading fluency practice. These can be combined
with instruction on specific strategies For comprehending expository texts, while including components in the intervention to attend to the
motivational needs oF students who may have experienced repeated reading Failure.
Spring 2012

ASSESSING
RESPONSIVENESS
FOR INTERMEDIATE G R A D E
STUDENTS

require students to miss content area instruction.

The research questions we investigated are:

1. What are the effects of a supplemental readIn the context of RTI, defining responsiveness is
ing intervention for fourth-grade students
identified as having a higher probability of
key. As typically conceptualized. Tier 2 intervenreading failure compared to children receivtions are designed to be relatively brief (e.g.,
ing typical classroom instruction?
812 weeks) to determine who may need a more
intensive intervention (i.e.. Tier 3) and who re2. Does initial predicted probability of reading
ceived enough of a boost as to no longer require
failure and other moderators of reading preintervention beyond Tier 1. Responsiveness to indict responsiveness to a supplemental reading
intervention?
struction can be defined by level of achievement
attained, by amount of growth over time, or both
3. Does initial predicted probability of reading
(L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). We incorporated
failure and other moderators reduce the
curriculum-based measures into the present study
probability of reading failure after intervention?
to assess growth as the intervention included
some attention to fluency. Near transfer and far
transfer measures also require consideration. Near
transfer measures that reflect instructional em- METHOD
phases may be best suited for short-term intervenPARTICIPANTS
tions, but far transfer measures such as published,
nationally normed tests may provide more gener- The participants were 123 fourth-grade students
alizable results. We used both types of rneasures in identified as having a higher probability for reading failure compared to their classmates. The
this study.
mean age of students was 9 years, 7 months {SD =
4.93 months). No students received special education services for any academic area. Table 1 proC O N T E X T OF T H E C U R R E N T
vides demographics for the screening sample,
STUDY AND RESEARCH
intervention group, and control group. There
QUESTIONS
were no significant differences between the interThe current study is based on work from the sec- vention and control groups for gender, X'^(l) ^ =
ond and third years of a 5-year longitudinal pro- 123) = .004, p = .95; ethnicity (collapsed into
Black, White, and Other categories), x^(2, A^ =
ject studying reading disabilities in middle
120) = 2.00,/> = .37; or mother's education, x^(3,
childhood, specifically fourth grade. In the first
A'^= 119) = .32,/> = .96. Two students withdrew
year, the screening procedure used to identify atfrom participation during the intervention; attririsk fourth grade students was validated (Speece et tion analysis was not possible given the sample
al., 2010). We applied the screening procedure to cell size. There were no differences by cohort.
identify fourth-grade students who had a higher
probability of reading failure in two consecutive INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING
cohorts of students. The purpose of this study was
to examine the effects of a supplemental, multi- The students were enrolled in one of 11 parochial
component Tier 2 intervention for fourth-grade schools in the mid-Atlantic region. There were 18
students who had a high probability of reading unique teachers in the study, and eight teachers
were in the study both years. On average, teachers
failure. We developed an intervention using scihad 15.89 years of teaching experience {SD =
ence content texts, positing that such an interven11.72, range 1-40 years) and 7.44 years teaching
tion could be motivating for students given
fourth grade {SD = 7.75; range 1-26 years).
interesting texts and could ease scheduling Teachers identified their race as Black {n = 3),
demands of supplemental intervention that often Multiracial {n = 1), and White {n = 14). One
Exceptional Children

321

TABLE 1

Participant Demographics
Screening Sample

Intervention Group

(n = 463)
Demographic Variable

Gender
Male
Female
Race
Black
White
Biracial or Other
Mother's education
< High school graduate
High school graduate
College degree
Graduate degree

Cn = 57)

Control Group
(n: = 66)

228

49.2
50.8

34

59.6

235

23

38.9

39
27

59.1
40.9

107
304
41

23.7
67.3
9.1

25
26
5

44.6
46.4

28
34
2

43.8
53.1
3.1

1.4

54.9
22.0
21.8

39
10

1.8
70.9
18.2

9.1

2
46
10
6

3.1
71.9
15.6
9.4

6
242
97
95

8.9

Note. Some percentages do not add up to 100% due to missing values. The percentages for Race and Mother's
Education ate based on the number of parents reporting, not the total in the sample.

teacher had a bachelor's degree; 11 had a bachelor's degree plus some credits toward a master's
degree; five had a master's degree; and one had a
master's plus 30 credits. Nine teachers had certification, and five were pursuing state certification.
The parochial schools were part of a large
group of schools coordinated by a central administration. Individual schools selected a core reading curriculum and made site-based decisions
about instruction. To document the quality of
Tier 1 instruction classroom, project staff
observed reading and language arts twice during
the school year. They took field notes, and at the
end of the observation session, rated teachers on a
scale of 0 (low quality) to 3 (high quality) on
three facets of instruction: delivery, management,
arid content. Ratings ftom the indicators were
averaged to obtain an overall instructional quality
rating. High quality ratings were given when
instruction aligned with research-based practices.
Interrater agreement for observers was above .90.
The mean ratings were 2.64 {SD = 0.21) across
the 2 years (min = 2.11; max = 2.90). These data
suggest Tier 1 instruction for the participants of
the current study was of satisfactory instructional
quality.

MEASURES

We administered five pretest/posttest measures,

two progress monitoring measures, three posttest
only measures, and collected two measures that
served as moderator variables.
Word Recognition and Decoding. We adminis-

tered the Word Identification and Word Attack

subtests of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of
Achievement, Third Edition (WJ III; Woodcock,
McGrew, Mather, &C Schrank, 2001). The Letter
Word Identification subtest assesses word recognition skills. The mean split-half reliability coefficient is .94. The Word Attack subtest assesses
students' ability to decode phonetically regular
pseudowords as an evaluation of phonetic and
structural analysis skills. The split-half reliability
coefficient is .87.
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, Fourth Edition

(GMRT). We administered the GMRT Reading

Comprehension subtest (MacGinitie, MacGinitie,
Maria, & Dreyer, 2000) to assess comprehension.
Students have 35 min to silently read short narrative and expositoty passages and answer multiplechoice questions. The alternate form and the
test-retest reliability exceed .90 fot fourth-grade
students.

Spring 2012

Test ofWord Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). We

administered the Sight Word Efficiency (SWE)

and Phonemic Decoding Fluency (PDF) subtests
of the TOWRE (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte,
1999) to assess real word and nonword reading
efficiency skills. SWE assesses fluent reading of
real words, and PDF subtest assesses fluent decoding of nonsense words. Torgesen et al. report
excellent alternate-form reliability (r = .93) and
strong concurrent criterion-related validity {r =
.87 to .89).
Maze. Maze (L. S. Fuchs, n.d.) is an assessment of silent reading and comprehension. The
task uses a modified cloze technique. The first
sentence of a reading passage remains intact, and
every seventh word thereafter is deleted and replaced with three choices. The student selects the
choice that is appropriate in the context. Students
have 2 min to complete as many choices as possible. We converted the mean number of correct
choices for two probes to items correct per
minute. The reliability and criterion validity of
the Maze are strong (r = .60 to .86; L. S. Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1992).
Passage Reading Fluency (PRF). PRF (L. S.

Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fuchs, 1990) is an assessment

of oral reading fluency. Students have 1 min to
read a narrative passage. We administered two
fourth-grade passages and calculated the mean
words correct per minute. Reliability (test-retest,
alternate form) exceeds .90 across studies, and criterion validity is strong (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs,
1992).
Word Identification Fluency (WIF). WIF is an

assessment of word reading fluency. To develop

WIF, we followed procedures used by D. L.
Gompton (personal communication, March 3,
2003). Words on WIF were selected from the Educator's Word Frequency Guide (Zeno, Ivens, Mil-

lard, & Duwuri, 1995). Words were randomly

selected to represent words with a range of frequency levels. We created parallel probes each
containing 80 words. We calculated the mean
number of correct choices for two probes and
converted the score to words correct per minute.
In the screening validation sample (Speece et al.,
2010), the parallel forms reliability coefficient was
.92. Validity coefficients with the WJ III Word
Identification subtest (r = .68), TOWRE SWE
(r = .86), and PRF (r= .78) are strong.
Exceptional Children

Assessment of Strategy Knowledge and Use for

Information Text (ASKIT). We assessed students'

knowledge of and ability to use comprehension

strategies for information text using the Assessment of Strategy Knowledge and Use for Information Text (ASKIT, Form A, Ritchey, Speece,
Silverman, & Montanaro, n.d.), an assessment
developed for this research. In this assessment,
students answer questions about reading strategies
(previewing, identifying the main idea, retelling,
summarizing) and demonstrate these reading
strategies through reading an authentic information text (O'SuUivan, 2003). Students read the
text orally and the examiner recorded miscues.
Each knowledge and strategy question was scored
using a zero to 3 scale, using defined criteria and
anchor points for each score. Two raters scored all
items; interrater agreement exceeded .90, and any
discrepancies were discussed to yield a final score.
There are two scores: percentage of words read
correctly (untimed reading accuracy) and total
raw score (comprehension). Gronbach's alpha for
this sample was .56 {n = 123), just below the recommended .60 for researcher-developed measures
(Gersten et al., 2005). We judge this to be acceptable for research purposes given a likely restricted
range with this at-risk sample.
Science Knowledge. We administered a 28item multiple-choice test to assess learning of science content that was part of the intervention.
The test items assessed knowledge of science concepts (e.g., physical and behavioral adaptations,
interdependence) and characteristics of forest animals (e.g., habitats, predators/prey, classification
of animals) that were included in the intervention
texts. Test items were read to students. The internal consistency of the science knowledge assessment was .71 {n= 123).
Academic Competence. Glassroom teachers
completed the Academic Gompetence subscale of
the Social Skills Rating System (Gresham &
Elliott, 1990). The subscale has nine items which
require the rater to use a three-point scale to compare the child to classmates on reading, math
achievement, and motivation to learn. Gresham
& Elliott reported excellent test-retest reliability
for the teacher form of the Academic Gompetence subtest (r = .93). The criterion validity is
moderate to strong with other teacher rating
measures.
323

Extra Services. We collected the number of

extra services provided to students to account for
other academic support that students may have
received (Case, Speece, & Molloy, 2003). These
included small group interventions in reading or
math, special education services. Title I services,
speech and language therapy, counseling, or outof-school tutoring. We included the total number
of extra services in analyses (max =10). We interpreted scores on this measure to reflect the degree
of concern school personnel had for a student
rather than as an indication of the impact of additional services on achievement.

We rank-ordered students by predicted probability within each school; we needed four or

more students at each school to have sufficient
numbers included in intervention and control
groups. Students were paired by initial predicted
probability and randomly assigned to the intervention condition {n = 57) or a nonintervention
control condition (n = 66). After intervention
groups were formed, we administered initial
progress monitoring assessments in January of
each year. Four progress monitoring time points
were selected to estimate growth at approximately
3-week intervals; four points allow for estimation
of nonlinear growth.
Intervention. Intervention occurred for 2
PROCEDURE
consecutive years using the same standard protocol. The intervention consisted of 24 scripted
Screening, Selection, and Assignment to Gondilessons implemented over 12 to 15 weeks (midtion. After research activities were approved by the
January to April). Intervention was provided in
Institutional Review Board for Research with
three 40-min sessions per week (16 hours total) in
Human Subjects, we sent permission letters that groups of two to four students. Intervention was
included an informed consent form to all enrolled provided in addition to general reading instrucfourth-grade students in 11 schools. In the fall, tion provided by the classroom teachers, and
we screened 463 students (251 students in Co- scheduled at the teachers' preferred time to the
hort 1, 212 students in Cohort 2). We selected extent possible. Any additional services that stustudents for intervention based on screening pro- dents were receiving at school continued. Graducedures developed in the first year of the project ate research assistants, some of whom had
(Speece et al., 2010). The screening battery in- previous teaching experience, served as tutors.
cluded GMRT Reading Comprehension, Test of There were 12 tutors total; one tutor was an
Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF; instructor for both years. Tutors participated in
Mather, Hammill, Allen, & Roberts, 2004) and approximately 20 hr of training and demonTeacher Reading Rating (TRR; Speece et al., strated fidelity prior to intervention.
2010). For the TRR, students are rated on a 1-toThe focus of the intervention vvas expository
5 scale; for students rated as 1 or 2 (below grade text comprehension, using science texts. We delevel), teachers identified the number of problem veloped and identified two units of instruction
areas experienced by the student (decoding/word (i.e., animals of temperate forests and tropical
reading, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, mo- rain forests) using state curriculum standards for
tivation). Raw scores from GMRT Reading Com- reading and life sciences. Lesson plans, the list of
prehension, TOSWRF, and the number of texts used, and the scope and sequence are availreading problems from the TRR were entered able from the first author.
Eluency. Students engaged in repeated readinto a logistic regression equation to determine
ing
using
a passage read in the previous lesson, for
the probability of reading risk. We identified stu5
to
7
min
of the session. First, the tutor modeled
dents with a predicted probability of risk 3: .40 as
fluent
reading
of the text selection (Chard et al.,
the initial pool of participants. A higher probabil2002). Next, students engaged in repeated readity indicates higher risk. The decision to select .40
ing individually or with a partner. Each lesson alas the criterion was a practical one in that it proternated between students rereading the passage
vided the number of students for whom we had
for 3 min individually and rereading the passage
the resources to include in the assessment and inwith a partner (2 min per student). Students tead
tervention activities.
the passage as many times as possible within the
324

Spring 2012

total time period. When reading with a partner,

Motivational Components. To incorporate
students provided peer Feedback on miscues con- motivational components (Guthrie, Wigfield,
sistent with peer-assisted learning strategies proce- Barbosa et al., 2004; Guthrie, Wigfield, & Perdures (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, &C Simmons, encevich, 2004), we provided students with op1997). Additionally, the tutor listened to one stu- portunities to make choices. During some
dent during each session and provided Feedback sessions oF repeated reading, students could select
using a standardized protocol that included one oFrwo passages or they had an opportunity to
telling the student the number oF words read cor- select and read a preFerred chapter or section oF
rectly, providing a compliment/praise, and mak- text. Additionally, Four hands-on science activities
ing a recommendation For improvement on a were interspersed throughout the intervention,
and were a part oFseveral intervention sessions.
specific skill.
Fidelity of Intervention Implementation. We
Comprehension. Each lesson included explicit
monitored
fidelity oF intervention in several ways.
comprehension instruction, vocabulary instrucWe
identified
fidelity criteria For each component
tion, and text instruction and was approximately
oF
the
lesson
(points per lesson ranged 25-52)
25 to 30 min per session. Five strategies were tarand
included
them
on the lesson plan to guide tugeted For instruction; (a) previewing expository
tors
in
implementing
the lesson plan. Prior to
texts, (b) monitoring For understanding, (c) using
providing
instruction,
tutors demonstrated that
strategies For decoding unFamiliar words, (d) findthey
could
implement
randomly
selected lessons
ing the main idea using paragraph shrinking (D.
with
at
least
90%
oFthe
components.
Project stafF
Fuchs et al., 1997; Jenkins, Heliotis, Stein, &
observed
tutors
while
implementing
the
intervenHaynes, 1987), and (e) question-and-answer relation,
and
corrective
Feedback
was
provided
as
tionships (Raphael & Au, 2005). When teaching
needed.
these strategies, the tutor provided cognitive modWe audio-recorded all lessons, and evaluated
eling and multiple opportunities For the students
approximately
25% oF lessons {n = 123) across tuto practice the strategy, both in isolated text extors
and
sessions
For fidelity. The mean time oF
amples and within authentic texts.
implementation For the evaluated lessons was 40
Vocahulary. Tutors introduced two to Four
min, 40 s {SD = 1 min 47 s). Approximately 93%
words in each lesson. Following the instructional
{SD = 4%) oFthe components were implemented,
protocol For teaching vocabulary in context (as
and there were no significant diFFerences in group
described in Beck et al., 2002). Tutors reFerenced
mean fidelity by year, F{\, 55) = .28, p = .6006,
how the word was used in the text by repeating or
or implementation time by year, F{1, 55) = .96,
paraphrasing the sentence in which the word first
^ = .3305.
appeared. Then, they provided students with a
Other Intervention Variahles. We collected
definition, and the tutor and students generated
attendance data to determine the number oF inexamples and nonexamples, and extended use oF
tervention sessions attended. Tutors rated each
the word to other contexts.
student's attention during the intervention session
Text Instruction. Instructional time was allo- on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = very poor to 5 = very good,
cated to reading and discussing authentic texts. required no prompting).
We reviewed commercially available texts and
Data Analyses. We investigated diFFerences
identified text with an appropriate instructional between the control and intervention conditions
reading level (late second grade to third grade); (Group) through multilevel modeling with stuwe also selected texts on the basis oFstudent inter- dents nested within classroom (Littell, Milliken,
est and age appropriateness. Tutors modeled flu- Stroup, & Wolfinger, 1996), analyzing pre/
ent reading, and students read the text orally and posttest diFFerences, posttest-only diFFerences, and
silently. The lesson plans directed tutors to model growth diFFerences. Classroom-level intercepts
comprehension strategies, introduce new vocabu- were allowed to vary and were included as ranlary, and ask students text-based questions. Stu- dom eFFects (22 oF 24 instructional groups were
dents also practiced applying comprehension Formed within classroom). Intraclass correlations
strategies within connected text.
For classrooms ranged From 0 to . 186. Group was
Exceptional Children

32S

included as a fixed effect. For pretest/post-test

variables, we estimated differences between
groups via two-level modeling with pretest as a
control variable to increase precision of estimates
and to account for any differences between
groups that may have been present (i.e., random
effects analysis of covariance, ANGOVA). For
posttest-only measures, we estimated differences
between groups via two-level hierarchical linear
models with posttest as the outcome (i.e., random
effects analysis of variance, AN OVA). BenjamaniHochberg corrections for multiple comparisons
were made.
For progress monitoring variables, we estimated differences between the intervention and
control group via three-level linear growth models
with time nested within students nested within
classroom (Singer, 1998). The intercept for
progress monitoring analyses was centered at the
last measurement occasion to estimate group differences at the end of intervention and rate of
growth across time. The first time point was used
as a covariate in progress monitoring analyses to
control for initial group pretest differences. Govariates were grand-mean centered. We calculated
effect sizes using Hedges' g. The effects of potential moderators of learning were examined by estimating interactions between these moderators
and Group. The moderator variables included
extra services, SSRS Academic Gompetence, and
initial predicted probability of reading failure. Exploratory analyses investigated intervention-only
predictors including tutor ratings of students' attention, intervention attendance rate, and tutor
fidelity to the intervention protocol.

RESULTS

Table 2 includes descriptive statistics for pretest

and posttest measures, posttest-only measures,
progress monitoring measures across four time
points, and moderators. Standard scores for
norm-referenced measures are reported for descriptive purposes, but raw scores were used in
analyses. Table 2 also includes descriptive statistics
for initial predicted probability (i.e., probability
of having a reading problem at the beginning of
fourth grade) and posterior predicted probability

(i.e., probability of having a reading problem at

the end of fourth grade).
DIFFERENCES ON PRE/POST

MEASURES

Table 3 presents Group X Time results for the

random effects ANGOVA models on TOWRE
Sight Word Efficiency, TOWRE Phonemic
Decoding Efficiency, WJ III Letter Word Identification, WJ III Word Attack, GMRT Reading
Gomprehension, and Maze. There were no significant effects for Group X Time. We also investigated moderators including Academic
Gompetence, extra services, and initial predicted
probability. We found no significant effects in
these analyses.
DIFFERENCES ON

POSTTEST-ONLY

MEASURES

There were three posttest-only measures: ASKIT

Reading Accuracy, ASKIT Gomprehension, and
Science Knowledge (see Table 3). There was a significant effect of Group on ASKIT Gomprehension, F{\, 16) = 10.09, p = .006, favoring the
intervention group, g = 0.56. This was statistically
significant after correcting for multiple comparison. There was a significant effect of Group on
Science Knowledge, E{1, 16) = 12.70,/>< .0031,
favoring the intervention group, ^= 0.65.
Regarding the effect of intervention on probability of reading failure, the posterior predicted
probability for the control group was .69 {SD =
0.05) and for the intervention group was .57 {SD
= 0.06). There was no significant difference in
posterior predicted probability by Group, controlling for initial predicted probability, E{\, 102) =
.74,/ =.40.
We investigated moderators in these analyses
to determine whether there were interactions
between Group and Academic Gompetence, extra
services, and initial predicted probability. There
was a Group X extra services interaction, E{\,
101) = 5.49,;>< .05, on ASKIT Gomprehension
(see Table 3). Post hoc analysis showed no effect
of the intervention over control, g = 0.17, for students with fewer extra services (one SD below the
mean), but a substantial effect, g= 1.01, for children with a higher number of extra services (one
SD above the mean). Ghildren who received more
services and who received the intervention outSpring2012

TABLE

Descriptive Statistics
Intervention

Control

Measure

SD

SD

Initial predicted probability

Pretest measures
CBM Maze
GMRT Reading Comprehension
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
TOWRE Sight Wotd EFFiciency
W] III Word Attack
W] III Word IdentiFication

0.78

0.19

0.76

0.19

4.79
86.72
94.96
98.78
96.76
94.29

1.91
6.59
12.12
11.01
9.12

4.64
86.39
93.55
98.63
96.40
94.80

1.78
7.10
10.16
8.59
8.48
7.55

92.25
103.70
104.63
109.20
55.18
58.65
58.04

23.69
24.24
24.20

60.35

15.95

93.87
105.87
108.13
109.46
55.91
59.18
59.30
60.02

21.89
25.56
25.90
26.47
12.26
12.66
12.77
12.86

9.00
86.70
98.09
97.88
97.79
97.19
24.25
0.97
17.63

4.03
8.44
13.96
12.40
15.61
6.99
5.02
0.02
4.40

8.44
87.52
95.83
93.55
98.42
96.59
21.44
0.96
14.92

3.85
8.82
11.78
10.16

0.57

0.06

0.69

.05

88.26
2.23
2.23
0.96
22.16

7.95
0.85
1.91
1.04
2.09
0.63

87.34
2.32
2.17
1.05

8.85
0.83
1.96
1.22

Ptogtess monitoring
CBM Passage Reading Fluency 1
CBM Passage Reading Fluency 2
CBM Passage Reading Fluency 3
CBM Passage Reading Fluency 4
CBM Word IdentiFication Fluency 1
CBM Word IdentiFication Fluency 2
CBM Wotd IdentiFication Fluency 3
CBM Wotd IdentiFication Fluency 4
Posttest
CBM Maze
CMRT Reading Comprehension
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency
W] III Word Attack
W] III Word IdentiFtcation
ASKIT Comprehension
ASKIT Reading Accuracy
Science Knowledge
Posterior predicted probability
Moderators
SSRS Academic Competence
TRR overall rating
TRR (number oF reading problems)
Sum oF extra services
Intervention attendance (24 sessions)
Tutor rating oF attention

4.03

8.65

26.35
14.61
15.57
15.04

9.51
8.44
5.03
0.04
4.02

Note. ASKIT = Assessment oF Knowledge and Strategy Use For InFormation Text; CBM = curriculum-based
measurement; GMRT = Cates-MacGinitie Reading Test; SSRS = Social Skills Rating System; TRR = Teacher
Reading Rating; TOWRE = Test oFWord Reading Efficiency; WJ III = Woodcock Johnson Test oF Achievement,
Third Edition. CBM measures are averaged across two probes and converted to items per minute. Standard scores
{M = 100, SD = 15) are presented For norm-reFerenced tests.

Exceptional Children

TABLE

Random Effects ANCOVA/ANOVA

Results for Pretest-Posttest Variables

Measure
CBM Maze
Group
Pretest
GMRT Reading Comprehension
Group
Pretest
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency
Group
Pretest
TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency
Group
Pretest
WJ III Word Attack
Group
Pretest
WJ III Word Identification
Group
Pretest
ASKIT Comprehension
Group
Science Knowledge
Group
ASKIT Comprehension: Extra services moderator
Group
Extra Services
Group X Extra Services

df

1, 16
1, 103

12.85

.AGG
<.OO1

1, 103

0.67
32.30

.424
<.OO1

1,15
1, 101

0.00
400.88

.983
<.OO1

1,15
1, 101

0.64
160.78

<.ooi

1,15
1, 101

0.08
175.39

.775
<.OO1

1,15
1, 101

0.29
362.81

.596
<.OO1

1,16

10.09

.006

1,16

12.70

.003

0.87
2.66
5.49

0.363
0.106
0.021

1,16

1,16
1, 101
1, 101

0.56

.437

Note. ASKIT = Assessment of Knowledge and Strategy Use for Information Text; CBM = curriculum-based
measurement; GMRT = Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Etficiency;
WJ III = Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement, Third Edition.
p e r f o r m e d t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p .
There were no other significant effects.

Unconditional models were estimated to deter-

action for WIF, F{\, 584) = 3.97,/) < .05. There

was no difference between the rnean of the control and the intervention groups at any of the four
time points. At the last data point, the control
group's score decreased slightly and the interven^^^ ^^^^^,^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^y^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^

mine whether there was significant variance in intercept and slope for progress monitoring
measures (PRF and WIF). The model for PRF
produced a significant random intercept and
slope, WIF had significant intercept and significant quadratic parameter. We constructed conditional models to test differences in growth by
group (see Table 4), and found a significant inter-

^^ responsible for the interaction. No significant

interaction was found for PRF.
Next, we tested the effect of moderators on
conditional models using initial predicted probability. Academic Gompetence, and extra services,
We found a significant Group X Time (initial
predicted probability interaction on PRF, F{2,
582) = 3.37,/ < .05 (see Table 4). Post hoc analy-

DIFFERENCES ON GROWTH MEASURES

328

Spring 2012

TABLE 4

Conditional Growth Models for Passage Reading Fluency and Word Identification Fluency
Measure
Passage Reading Fluency
Pretest
Group
Time
Group X Time
Word Identification Fluency
Ptetest
Time
Time X Time
Group
Time X Group
Time X Time X Group
Passage Reading Fluency: Interaction With Initial
Predicted Probability
Pretest
Time
Group
Group X Time
Initial Predicted Probability
Initial Predicted Probability X Group
Initial Predicted Probability X Group X Time
ses of the control and intervention conditions
within high and low probability showed no significant differences in the predicted scores at each
time point, controlling for initial PRF and classroom teacher. It appears that differences between
high and low initial predicted probabilities within
the control group may have been responsible for
the interaction effects.
ANALYSIS OE INTERVENTION
MODERATORS

We explored whether intervention variables applicable to only the int:ervention group (attendance,
tutor rating of attention, and intervention
fidelity) predicted response as defined by pretestposttest, posttest only, and growth measures. We
found no significant results on these predictors,
but found marginal effects of tutor ratings of
attention on GMRT Reading Comprehension,
F{\, 38) = 3.75, p = .07, and Maze, F{\, 38) =
3.14, p = .09, suggesting that attention may play
a role in responsiveness to intervention.
Exceptional Children

df

1,586
1, 16
1,586
1,586

1786.21
0.07
180.60
1.37

< 0.001

1,584
1,584
1,584
1,16
1,584
1,584

2514.54

< 0.001
0.340
< 0.001
0.390
0.091
0.468

1,582
1,582
1, 16
1,582
1,582
1,582
2,582

1130.24
207.67
0.06
1.34
5.78
4.02

0.795
< 0.001
0.242

0.91
42.61
0.78
2.87
3.97

3.37

< 0.001
< 0.001
0.805
0.247
0.016
0.045
0.035

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine if a

short-term, multicomponent Tier 2 reading
intervention that focused on cornprehension of
expository text affected the reading skills and
probability of reading problems of fourth-grade
children within a randomized control trial. There
are few studies investigating the effectiveness of
reading interventions for upper elementary children who are struggling readers, and no other
multicomponent studies that focus on comprehension of expository text (Wanzek et al., 2010).
The results of this experimental study are
mixed. Children in the intervention group performed significantly better on the identification
and application of comprehension strategies {g =
0.56) and on science knowledge {g = 0.65), both
closely aligned with instruction. The effect for
reading comprehension was moderated by the
number of additional services received by children
such that children in the intervention group who
received more services benefited more from the
329

intervention than did their counterparts in the

control condition. Passage reading fluency was
moderated by the number of extra services
received. Together, these results suggest that children at higher risk may be the best candidates for
the intervention tested here. There were no other
differential effects for fluency, word level skills,
broader measures of reading comprehension, or
reduction of risk. There was a suggestion that the
intervention was differentially effective on reading
comprehension for intervention children based on
the rating of attention by tutors, which supports
findings reported by Stage, Abbott, Jenkins, and
Berninger (2003). Given that fidelity of implementation was high, further research may be
needed to determine the instructional content
and conditions (including toi:al amount of
instruction) that may be needed to positively
affect broad reading outcomes. It may be the case,
as suggested by McKeown, Beck, and Blake
(2009) that strategy instruction could have a
lesser role as compared to content instruction.

Children at higher risk

may be the best candidates for the
intervention tested here.
The primary finding of this investigation,
that a short-term, multicomponent reading intervention is effective on a near transfer measure of
comprehension, raises several issues regarding the
applicability of the RTI model with upper elementary grade students. We did not identify any
studies that used a multicomponent approach to
reading comprehension with expository text for
struggling readers, but reasoned that instruction
that targeted fluency, vocabulary, motivation, and
comprehension skills was important for poor
fourth-grade readers because of evidence suggesting that children at this age likely exhibit multiple
reading problems (e.g.. Snow, 2002). This group
of students did not demonstrate significant weaknesses in word reading skills, as evidenced by
average range reading standard scores on normreferenced assessments, also supporting the choice
of intervention content. A focus on science provided an opportunity to meet scheduling conflicts, which can result in students missing

330

content area instruction in order to receive reading intervention. The effects for the science
knowledge assessment indicate that students
learned content during an intervention with the
primary goal of improving reading.
How best to capture responsiveness is an important measurement concern within RTI models. Several of the single component studies
included in the Wanzek at al. (2010) review
found significant effects for expository text comprehension: However, they did not use norm-referenced measures but instead relied on
researcher-developed measures (e.g.. Mason,
2004; Miranda, Villaescusa, & Vidal-Abarca,
1997). O'Gonnor et al. (2002) found significant
effects on several nationally normed assessments
but the focus was narrative text delivered over approximately 33 hr of instruction, twice the time
in the current study. Rosenshine and Meister
(1994) identified the tension between researcherdeveloped and nationally normed assessments in
their review of reciprocal teaching and it has been
a common finding subsequently (e.g., Simmons
et al., 2010). It seems sensible to target measures
more proximal to instruction, especially when
interventions are short term, given that nationally
normed measures are not designed to capture
growth over short time periods. It may be more
appropriate to label our ASKIT measure as a
"medium" transfer task given that the text used
was in the same genre as instructional texts but
novel to the children and the questions on knowledge and use were derived from the intervention.
This type of hybrid task, when fully developed
psychometrically, may serve as a bridge between
near and far transfer instruments. However, in the
current study we did not find uniform significant
effects between intervention and control groups
on fluency measures that are known to capture
short-term growth (i.e., PRF, WIF). At First
glance this was a puzzling result given that children spent most of their time reading text with a
small but explicit emphasis on reading fluently.
The measures, though, are more properly thought
of as far transfer measures as the words and text
were not related to science content and were narrative passages. Future research should examine
fluency and accuracy measures that use words that
overlap With instructional text in short-term
interventions.

Spring 2012

This approach to assessment and responsiveness may provide a middle ground for validation
of short-term comprehension interventions as
called for in most RTI models. Any discussion of
proximal and distal measures of responsiveness
should recognize that there will always be a question of generalizability of findings when they do
not include broader measures that researchers,
teachers, and parents may prioritize. A longitudinal strategy across years may be one way to untangle these critical outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

A primary limitation is that although we obtained

information on the quality of general classroom
instruction, we do not have detailed data on daily
classroom practice in reading or science. To better
contextualize the Tier 1 instruction that students
in Tier 2 are also experiencing, more detailed data
on Tier 1 instruction may be needed. Additionally,
though representative of many public and private
school districts around the country, the parochial
schools in which the study was conducted may
have had less dramatic variation in student ability
levels than in other studies. This may have
reduced the possibility of affecting differences
between the intervention and control group. We
note that our intervention sample, compared with
the screening sample, had more males (39.6% vs.
49.2%), fewer White children (27.3% vs.
43.8%), and fewer mothers with at least a college
education (27.3% vs. 43.8%). Also, these children were, on average, a standard deviation below
national norms on reading comprehension and
scored just about the 25th percentile on PRF winter norms provided by Hasbrouck and Tindal
(2006). Although we included motivational components within the intervention, we did not include a motivation outcome. Finally, because the
intervention was multicomponent and complex,
it is impossible to know the effect of specific aspects of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Civen the results, our perspective on RTI with

upper elementary grade children in the area of
reading comprehension is one of cautious optiExceptional Children

mism tempered by the effort required to produce

what some may regard as modest effects. It may
be ambitious to think that 16 hr of instruction
will unbend the twig of persisting reading failure.
We did uncover some intriguing findings that
showed children in intervention were able to
apply their comprehension knowledge to a text
not used in intervention, and that this effect was
moderated by the number of extra-classroom services received. However, there were other distal
measures for which we did not find effects despite
targeting fluency and word level skills with an
overall emphasis on comprehension. Thus, although in principle RTI models may be applicable to upper elementary school children, in
practice, more work is needed on how the goals of
RTI can be achieved.

REFERENCES
Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., & Vachon, V. L.
(2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for
struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly,
26, 89-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593592
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Si Kucan, L. (2002).
Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction.
NewYork, NY:Guilford.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, G. A., & McKeown, M. G.
(1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on
lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506
Case, L. P, Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). The
validity of a response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and contextual factors. School
Psychology Review, 32, 557-582.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P, & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities.
In H. Carts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between
language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building
reading fluency with elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35,
386-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194020
350050101
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., EUeman, A.
M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly

331

below the radar: Latent transition modeling oF students

with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329-337. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.lindiF2008.04.003

Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-321.

http://dx.doi.Org/l 0.3102/00346543071002279
Graves, A. W. (1986). EfFects oF direct instruction and
metacomprehension training on finding main ideas.
Learning Disability Research, 1, 90-100.

Cunningham, P. M. (1998). The multisyllabic word

dilemma: Helping students build meaning, spell, and
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social
read "big" words. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overskills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 189-218. http://dx.
ance Service.
doi.org/10.1080/1057356980l40204
Grigg, W S., Daane, M. C , Jin, Y., & Campbell, J. R.
Diliberto, J. A., Beattie, J. R., Flowers, C. P, & Al(2003). The nation's report card: Reading 2002. Washgozzine, R. F. (2009). Effects oF teaching syllable skills
ington, DC: U.S. Department oF Education, Institute
instruction on reading achievement in struggling middle school readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48,oF Education Sciences. Retrieved From http://nces.ed
14-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1938807080 .gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2002/2003521 .asp
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K.
C , Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., . . . Tonks, S. (2004).
Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch,
C , Cable, A., Tackett, K. K, Schnakenberg, J. W Increasing reading comprehension and engagement
(2009). A synthesis oF reading interventions and eFFects through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Jouron reading comprehension outcomes For older strug- nal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403-423. http://
gling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.403
262-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543083 Guthrie, J. T , Wigfteld, A., & Perencevich, K. C.
(2004). ScaFFolding For motivation and engagement in
25998
reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. PerEnglert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making stuencevich, (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension:
dents partners in the comprehension process: OrganizConcept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 55-86). Mahing the reading "posse." Learning Disability Quarterly,
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14, 123-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1510519
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P, & Simmons, D. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2006). Oral reading flu(1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making class- ency norms: A valuable assessment tool For reading
rooms more responsive to diversity. American Educa- teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636-644. http://
tional Research Journal, 34, 174-206. http://dx. dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.3
2226253

doi.org/10.2307/1163346

Jenkins, J. R., Heliotis, J. D., Stein, M. L., & Haynes,

Fuchs, L. S. (n.d.). Project PROACT maze reading pas- M. C. (1987). Improving reading comprehension by
using paragraph restatements. Exceptional Children, 54,
sages. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

54-59.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure For monitoring student reading progress. School Leach, J., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. (2003).
Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of EducaPsychology Review, 21, 45-58.
tional Psychology, 95, 211-224.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A
Littell,
R. C , Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W , &
unifying concept For reconceptualizing the identification oF learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Re- Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models.
Cary, NC: SAS.
search & Practice, 13, 204-219.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamiett, C. L., Si Fuchs, D. (1990). MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K, Maria, K., &
Monitoring basic skills progress: Basic reading. Austin,Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests.
TX: PRO-ED.
Fourth edition. Forms S and T. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Coyne, M., Mason, L. (2004). Explicit selF-regulated strategy develGreenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality opment versus reciprocal questions: EFFects on exposiindicators For group experimental and quasi-experi- tory reading comprehension among struggling readers.
mental research in special education. Exceptional Chil- Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.283
dren, 71, 149-164.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. R, &c Baker, S. Mather, N., Hammill, D. D., Allen, E. A., & Roberts,
(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to R. (2004). Test ofsilent word readingfluency:Examiner's
students with learning disabilities: A review oF research. manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

332

Spring 2012

McKeown, M. G., Beck, 1. L., & Blake, R. (2009). Re- of Education Office of Educational Research and Imthinking reading comprehension instruction: A com- provement.
parison of instruction for strategies and content Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: Enhancing
approaches. Reading Research Qtiarterly, 44, 218253.comprehension and test taking across grades and conhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1
tent areas. Reading Teacher, 59, 206-221. http://dx.doi.
Minskoff, E. (2005). Teaching reading to struggling org/10.1598/RT.59.3.1
learners. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L.,
Miranda, A., ViUaescusa, M. 1., & Vidal-Aharca, E. Kendeou, P, & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order
(1997). Is attribution retaining necessary? Use of self- comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perregulated procedures for enhancing the reading com- spective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies
prehension strategies of children with learning ofReading, 11, 289-312.
disahilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, Ritchey, K. D., Speece, D. L, Silverman, R. D., &
513-520. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.l 177/00222194970300 Montanaro, E. (n.d.). Assessment of strategy knowledge
0506
and use for information text (ASKIT): Sea turtles (Form
Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Cordray, A). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Does early reading failure
decrease children's reading motivation? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41, 387-404. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0022219408321112

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal

teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479-530. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/1170585
Nagy, W, Berninger, V, & Abbott, R. (2006). Contri- Simmons, D., Hairrell, A., Edmonds, M., Vaughn, S.,
butions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy Larsen, R., Willson, V, .' . . Byrns, G. (2010). A comoutcomes of upper elementary and middle-school M- parison of multiple-strategy methods: Effects on
.nx.s. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134147. fourth-grade students' general and content-specific
reading comprehension and vocabulary development.
http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3,
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. (2000); Vocabulary processes.
121-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1934574l
In M. Kamil, P B. Mosenthal, P D. Pearson, & R. Barr
003596890
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Vol. ILI (pp.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to flt
269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Nagrowth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
tional assessment of educational progress. Washington,
Statistics, 24, 322-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102
DC: Institute on Education Statistics. Retrieved from
/10769986023004323
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
Snow, C. (Ed.) (2002). Reading for understanding: ToO'Connor, R., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007).
ward a R dr D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences
Monica, CA: RAND Education. Retrieved from
on reading fluency and comprehension. Exceptional
www.rand.org/puhs/monograph_reports/MRl465/MR
Children, 74, 3\-AG.
I465.pdf
O'Connor, R. E., Bell, K., Harty, K., Larkin, L.,
Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D.,
Sackor, S., & Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to
Schatschneider, C , Walker, C , & Andrusik, K. (2010).
poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison
Identifying children in middle childhood who are at
of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
risk for reading problems. School Psychology Review, 39,
474-485. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.lO37//OO22-O663.94
258-276. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
.3.474
nih.gov/pmc/atticles/PMC3070313/
O'Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Stage, S. A., Abbott, R. D., Jenkins, J. R., & Berninger,
Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third V. W (2003). Predicting response to early reading
grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532538. intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380060901
abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading
O'Sullivan, R. (2003). Protecting sea turtles. Washing- discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24-33. http://dx
ton, DC: National Geographic.
Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, .doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360010401
J. R, Gough, P B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to Therrien, W. J., & Hughes, C. (2008). Comparison of
children read aloud. Washington, DC: U.S. Department repeated reading and question generation on students'

Exceptional Children

reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabili- This work was supported by grants from the
ties: A Contemporary Journal, 6(1), 1-16.
National Institute of Child Health and Human
Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006).
Effect of a combined repeated reading and question
generation intervention on reading achievement.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21{2), 89-97.

http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A.
(1999). Test of word reading efficiency: Examiner's man-

ual Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., c Hickman, P.
(2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 11145-009-9179-5

Development (Grant No. P5HD052121) and the

U.S. Department of Education (Grant No.
H325D070082). The opinions expressed in this
article do not necessarily reflect those of these
agencies.
Manuscript received January 2011; accepted May
2011.

ADVERTISING INFORMATION
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Exceptional Children (EC), published four times

a year, is one of the official publications of CEC.
EC is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes
original research on the education and development of infants, toddlers, children, and youth
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., Mather, N., & Schrank, E
(2001). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement. Third with exceptionalities and articles on professional
issues of concern to special educators. Insightful
edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
pioneering research, topical issues, and broad
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duwuri,
perspectives by leaders in the field for more than
R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. Brew- 75 years have made EC one of the most
ster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
respected scholarly journals in special education.

ABOUT

THE

AUTHORS

Classifieds are $24 per line with a 12-line minimum. Black and white ads start at $773.
Other advertising opportunities

KRiSTEN D. RITCHEY (Delaware GEC),

Associate Professor, School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark. REBECCA D.
SILVERMAN (Maryland CEC), Assistant Professor; ELIZABETH A. MONTANARO (Mary-

land CEC), Doctoral Candidate; and DEBORAH

L. SPEECE (Maryland CEC), Professor,
Department of Special Education, University of
Maryland, College Park. CHRISTOPHER
SCHATSCHNEIDER (Florida CEC), Professor,
Department of Psychology and Florida Center for
Reading Research, Florida State University,
Tallahassee.

Address correspondence concerning this article to

Kristen D. Ritchey, School of Education, Willard
Hall Education Building, University of Delaware,
Newark, DE 19716 (e-mail: kritchey@udel.edu).
334

TEACHING Exceptional Children

New! Online Advertising
CEC SmariBrief
specialedcareers. org
To download our marketing tool kit, go to
vnvw.cec.sped.org/advertising or contact Victor
Erickson at 703-264-9454 or via e-mail at
victore@cec.sped.org

INDEX o r ADVERTlSF'i'
Charles C Thomas, 261
Council for Exceptional Children, cover 2,
355, cover 3

Spring 2012

Copyright of Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.