Research'Based Implications From Extensive Early … · Research'Based Implications From Extensive Early Reading Interventions ... This article provides a synthesis of re- ... McCardle

School Psychology Review,2007, Volume 36, No. 4, pp. 541-561

Research'Based Implications From Extensive EarlyReading Interventions

Jeanne WanzekFlorida State University

Sharon VaughnThe University of Texas at Austin

Abstract. A synthesis of the extant research on extensive early readitig interven-tions for students with reading difficulties and disabilities is provided. Findingsfrom 18 studies published between 1995 and 2005 revealed positive outcomes forstudents participating in extensive interventions. Results indicated higher effectsfor studies providing intervention to students in the smallest group sizes as wellas providing intervention early (grades K-1). No differences in overall outcomeswere revealed between studies implementing highly standardized interventions orinterventions with less standardized implementation. Implications for practice andfuture research are discussed.

Response to intervention (RTI) provides inadequate or inappropriate instructiona framework for accomplishing several highly (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn. 2004).valued goals: (a) early identification of stu- Although school psychologists embrace thesedents at risk for academic difficulties through goals conceptually, decisions related to effec-universal screening practices; (b) early and tive implementation of these goals are oftentargeted intervention for students at risk; (c) more problematic.ongoing progress monitoring—more firequently Perhaps the most challenging aspects offor students most at risk and less frequently for implementation in RTI models are the deci-typical achieving students; (d) use of increas- sions about what types of interventions shouldingly more intensive tiers of research-based be implemented; the amount of time interven-instruction to meet students' needs; and (e) tions should be implemented; who should pro-improved confidence that students referred for vide the interventions; and whether a uniform,special education who participated in evi- more standardized approach to instructiondence-based RTI models are less likely to be should be implemented or whether schoolsstudents who are academic casualties from should use a less standardized, or more indi-

Special thanks to Kim Kayser for her assistance with the selection of articles for the synthesis. We alsothank Nancy Scammacca and Kathryn Tackett for their competent assistance in organizing data from thestudies.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jeanne Wanzek. Florida State University andFlorida Center for Reading Research. 227 North Bronough. Suite 7250, Tallahassee, FL 32301; E-mail:[email protected]

Copyright 2007 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015

541

School Psychology Review, 2007. Volume 36, No. 4

vidualized. approach (Bums, Appleton, & Ste-houwer. 2005; Fuchs, Mock. Morgan, &Young, 2003; Reschly. 2005; Vaughn &Fuchs, 2003). Fundamentally, an evidence-based approach to addressing these questionswould be aligned with the guidelines as wellas recommended practice {see, for review,Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002).

Purpose and Rationale for Synthesis

This article provides a synthesis of re-search aimed at exploring some of the funda-mental questions related to effective imple-mentation of RTI. We synthesized the extantresearch on extensive early reading interven-tions lo examine several issues related to RTIimpiementation: (a) outcomes for studentswith reading difficulties or disabilities afterparticipation in extensive early reading inter-ventions, and (b) features of interventions as-sociated with high effect sizes, including in-structional group size, duralion, and level ofstandardization.

We recognized that to adequately ad-dress these questions would require a rela-tively large population of studies that ad-dressed a common academic problem. For thisreason, we selected studies that represented earlyreading interventions (kindergarten throughGrade 3). Reading interventions were selectedbecause ofthe following: (a) most students arereferred for leaming disabilities that are attrib-uted to difficulties with reading (Lyon, 1995);(b) most students identified as leaming dis-abled have reading as an Individualized Edu-cation Program goal (Lemer, 2000); (c) thereis a substantial data base of studies on earlyreading interventions (e.g.. McCardle &Chhabra, 2004; Rayner. Foorman. Perfetti, Pe-setsky, & Seidenberg, 2001); and (d) many ofthe recent initiatives at the state level (e.g.,Alabama Reading Initiative, Florida ReadingInitiative. Texas Reading Initiative) and poli-cies at the federal level (Reading First andEarly Reading First programs within the NoChild Left Behind Act, 2001) were based onfindings from these early reading studies.

542

Extensive Interventions

For the purpose of this synthesis, wewere interested in reading interventions thatwould be considered more extensive and thatprovided for a significant enough period oftime so students' RTI and overall interventioneffectiveness could be determined. We definedextensive interventions as occurring for 100sessions or longer, which is the equivalentof 20 weeks of daily intervention.

Interventions differ from typical readinginstruction in that they are designed to addressthe instructional needs of students who areexperiencing difficulties in leaming to read orwho have reading disabilities. There are sev-eral reasons for selecting extensive interven-tions for this synthesis. First, as Vellutino andcolleagues have specified (Vellutino, Scanlon,& Jaceard. 2003). we can understand whetherstudents have true reading difficulties only ifwe can control for inadequacies in instruc-tion—best accomplished by providing exten-sive interventions to students at risk to deter-mine relative progress. Second, previous syn-theses of the reading intervention researchhave not specifically addressed the effective-ness of extensive interventions (Foorman.2003; McCardle & Chhabra. 2004; Pressley.2006). Third, within an RTI model, under-standing the efficacy of interventions providedto students after classroom instmction and lessextensive interventions (depending on criteriaused by the district) is essential and less wellunderstood (Vaughn, Wanzek. Linan-Thomp-son, & Murray. 2007).

Types of Extensive Interventions

A simple way to conceptualize interven-tions might be to consider that they could beimplemented in two primary ways: standard-ized or individualized. Standardized interven-tions specify, a priori, the elements of readinginstruction that will be implemented. The ele-ments selected are (a) associated with im-proved outcomes in previous studies, (b) welldefined in a curriculum, and (c) implementedby personnel who are trained specifically inihe implementation of the curricula. Althoughadjustments may be made to address students'

Implications From Extensive Inlerventions

levels, fundamental to applyitig a standardizedapproach is using a research-based standard cur-riculum and assuring fidelity ot implementation.

A second type of intervention is a moreindividualized approach. In school psychology,this approach may also he referred to as a proh-lem-solvuig approach (Bergen & Kratochwill.1990). Typically, these approaches are directedat defining the student's problem in behavioralterms, measuring performance in the natural set-ting, determining the specific goals to addressthe problem, designing and/or selecting an inter-vention to meet those goals, monitoring the stu-dent's progress toward those goals to determinethe effectiveness of the intervention, adjustingthe intervention if needed, and then making de-cisions about future interventions (Ikeda et al..2002; National Association of State Directors ofSpecial Education. 2005). In our review of theliterature on extensive interventions, we wereunable to locate any interventions implementedwith an individualized approach. So, although itwould be valuable to contrast more standardizedand individualized intervention, the lack of re-search in this area prevented us from addressingthis question directly.

For the purpose of this synthesis, weexamined student outcomes after participationin extensive interventions implemented withvarying levels of standardization. The studiesreviewed provided a range in their descrip-tions of implementation standardization, withsome categorized as high on standardization(curricula provided to all participants are wellspecified with few or no modifications) to lowon standardization (curricula and instructionalpractices are less well specified and more re-sponsive to individual students' needs).

In addition to documenting the effects ofinterventions that were high and low on stan-dardization, we were interested in describingthe components of interventions (e.g., instruc-tional elements, personnel) associated withhigh effect sizes. This is the type of evidence-based information frequentiy requested byschool psychologists and special educators(National Association of State Directors ofSpecial Education, 2005).

Method

Studies were identified through a two-step process. First, we conducted a computersearch of ERIC and PsycINFO to locate stud-ies pubiisbed between 1995 and 2005. Weselected the decade between 1995 and 2005because a large number of early interventionstudies were reporied in the research literatureduring this period and the studies during thisperiod were the ones that greatly influencedpolicy related to RTI. Key disability descrip-tors or root forms of descriptors (reading diff*,leaming disab*, delay, disorder*, at-risk. highrisk, disab*, dyslex*) were used in combina-tion with key reading descriptors or root formsof descriptors (reading, interven*. instruction,reading intervention, reading strategies, sup-plemental instruction, special educ.*, inclus*,integrat*, phonological awareness, phonemicawareness, phon*, fluency, vocab*. comp*) toidentify possible articles. The initial electronicsearch yielded 26.062 articles. Second, we cal-culated a hand search of 7 major journals forthe years 2003-2005 {Exceptiottal Children.Journal of Educational Psychology, Journalof Leaming Disabilities, Journal of SpecialEducation, Leaming Disabilities Research &Practice, Reading Research Quarterly, andScfwol Psychology Review). We selected theyears 2005-2005 because they were tiie mostrecent years and therefore studies during thattime would not be located through citationsearching and other syntheses.

Studies were selected if they met thefollowing criteria: (a) The study was reportedin a peer-reviewed journal and printed in En-glish; (b) The participants included studentswith leaming disabilities or students identifiedas at risk for reading difficulties (e.g., studentswith low ability, low phonemic awareness,low income, language disorders); studies withadditional participants were included if disag-gregated data were provided for the studentswith leaming disabilities or the students wereidentified as at risk; (c) The participants wereenrolled in grade levels between kindergartenand third grade inclusive; (d) Interventionstargeted early literacy in an alphabetic lan-guage, were provided for 100 sessions or

543

School Psychology Review, 2007, Volume 36, No. 4

more, and were not part of the general educa-tion curriculum provided to all students; (e)Interventions were provided as pan of theschool programming (does not include home,clinic, or camp programs); and (f) Dependentvariables addressed reading outcomes.

Data Analysis

Only studies that met the above-statedcriteria were coded. The vast majority of stud-ies were eliminated based on their abstracts,which provided information that assured usthe study would not meet criteria. When ab-stracts were ambiguous or led us to believe thestudy met criteria, we located and reviewedthe study to ensure it met our criteria.

Coding procedures. An extensive cod-ing sheet was developed to organize pertinentinformation about each of the studies. Thecode sheet was based on code sheets used inprevious research (Vaughn, Kim et al., 2003;Wanzek et al.. 2006) as well as the elementsspecified in the What Works ClearinghouseDesign and Implementation Assessment De-vice (Institute of Education Sciences, 2003).Data were collected on (a) participants (e.g.,age, gender, exceptionality); (b) methodology(e.g., research design, assignment); (c) inter-vention and comparison descriptions; (d) mea-sures; and (f) findings. There were three cod-ers for the articles. Interrater agreement wascalculated separately for each codesheet cate-gory (e.g., participants, design, and so on) andreached 91% or ahove for all categories. In-terrater agreement was calculated as the num-ber of agreements divided by the number ofagreements plus the number of disagreements.All code sheets were reviewed by the firstauthor for comprehetisiveness and accuracy.

Effect size calculation. Standardizedmean difference effect sizes and standard er-rors were calculated using the data reported ineach study. For all studies, the procedure forcalculating unbiased effect size estimates forCohen's d provided by Hedges (1981) wasused (this statistic is also known as Hedges'sg). Effect size estimates and standard errorswere computed for all dependent measures

544

and al! relevant pairs of groups for instances inwhich the study involved more than twogroups that were of interest. In cases wheremeans, standard deviations, and sample sizeswere provided for two or more independentgroups, these data were used to compute effectsizes. For Mathes et al. (2005), mean differ-ences, sample size, and independent t statisticswere used to compute effect sizes and standarderrors.

Results

A total of 18 studies, reported in 20 jour-nal articles, met criteria for inclusion in the syn-thesis. Fourteen studies used a treatment or com-parison group design, with 5 of these studiesrandomly assigning students to conditions(Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000: Jen-kins, Peyton. Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004; Mathes etal., 2005; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997;Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne. & O'Connor,1997). Two of the studies with random assign-ment of students also provided additional datain joumal articles published at a later date(Gunn, Smolkowski. Biglan, & Black, 2002;Torgesen et al., 1999). Random assignment isthe most critical element of an experimentaldesign providing the greatest evidence ofcausal effects. These studies, then, may pro-vide the most reliable evidence of interventioneffects. All of these studies also measuredintervention effects on standardized, norm-ref-erenced measures, increasing conHdence thatstudent gains are generalizable to the broadskills measured (e.g.. comprehension, wordrecognition) and not specific to the interven-tion skills taught.

Three studies examined student re-sponse over time in a single treatment group(Dev, Doyle, & Valente. 2002; Englert,Mariage, Garmon, & Tarrant, 1998; Vaughn,Li nan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and onestudy implemented a single-subject design(Snider, 1997). These studies were not de-signed to provide causal information, but didoffer key information for researchers and ed-ucators related to interventions and instructionwith potential for affecting student outcomes.Replication of fitidings and future studies test-

Implications From Extensive Interventions

ing these interventions with treatment or com-parison designs are needed to confirm the find-ings and generalize outcomes. A descriptionof the key features for each study is providedin Table 1.

Sufficient data for computing effectsizes was included for 13 of the studies. Wesummarize these study results by examiningeffects by the following: (a) duration of inter-vention, (b) instructional group size, (c) gradelevel of intervention, and (d) degree of stan-dardization. It should be noted that the studiessynthesized were not designed to specificallyanswer questions related to duration, groupsize, or grade level, and only one study heldthe degree of intervention standardization con-stant to examine related effects (Mathes et al.,2005). As a result, these factors and the re-ported findings may not be causally related.Without the experimental manipulation ofthese factors of interest, no causal inferencesshould be made about the factors' individualcontributions. Rather, we examine the effectsof the individual studies in these areas to de-scribe the extant literature available to schoolpsychologists and identify areas for additionalresearch.

Descriptive information is provided forthe five studies in which effect sizes could notbe computed (Dev et al., 2002; Bnglert et al..1998; Schneider. Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000:Snider, 1997; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Asummary of study findings and the dependentmeasures included in the effect sizes is pro-vided in Table 2.

Effects by Duration of Intervention

Interventions implemented for 5-7months. Two studies implemented a first-grade,phonics-based intervention (Sound Partners)with reading of text (Jenkins et al., 2004; Va-dasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & O'Connor,1997). Jenkins and colleagues reported similareffects on measures of prereading and readingwhether students read more decodable (range,effect size [ES] = 0.35 to 0.99) or less decodable(range, ES = 0.41 to 1.11) text during the inter-vention. Mean effects for Vadasy et al.were 0.50 (range = 0.31 to 0.78) when compar-

ing the intervention students to a group of stu-dents receiving no additional intervention.

Alternatively, smaller effects were cal-culated for two studies investigating a phono-logical awareness (PA) intervention for kin-dergarten students over a period of 5-6months (O'Connor. Notari-Syverson. & Va-dasy, 1996; Schneider et a!., 2000). A no-treatment comparison group was not availablein the O'Connor et al. study, but students withdisabilities in self-contained classrooms werecompared to students with disabilities in inte-grated classrooms who also received the sameintervention. The mean effect for students re-ceiving the intervention in the self-containedclassrooms was 0.18 (range = -0.43 to 0.75).However, when compared to students withoutdisabilities receiving the same intervention,the students with disabilities instructed in theself-contained classrooms lagged behind on anumber of prereading skills. Schneider et al.also compared students receiving the interven-tion to not-at-risk students receiving instruc-tion in typical classrooms. Students receivinga PA intervention over the 5-month periodsignificantly outperformed students not at riskat post-test on measures of phonologicalawareness. However, 1-2 years later, at theend of first and second grade, the comparisongroup of not-at-risk students maintained sig-nificantly higher outcomes on decoding andcomprehension. A second group of students inthe Schneider et al. study received the PAintervention along with intervention in lettersounds and achieved outcomes equivalent tothe not-at-risk students on the measures ofdecoding and comprehension at the end of firstand second grade. Student IQ was used as acovariate in the analyses. The students in thetypical classrooms participated in socialevents and games and did not receive anyformal reading instruction.

Vaughn. Linan-Thompson, and Hick-man (2003) implemented intervention over 30weeks but allowed students who obtained pre-determined fluency levels to exit interventionafter 20 weeks. Pre- to post-test standardizedmean change effect sizes ranged from 0.53to 6.06 on measures of word attack, passagecomprehension, fluency, and phonological

545


S • -

I?I

O

I

a.- JC/3

X

00 OX) Ml i3

S S £ -

i^

. MlM — — r ) 00

XVi

i'7in

— cs

X X•* mc c'E Eo o

-a

3

^ 1/3

s

•a

13 g

' .1•^ i5 e b i*s II g-Ba, .c £ k, .cCO u u a u0- H t- H

(fl en•S 6C C

a E

X X

7

5O

o

E3o

u oH OS

o 22

c c11a, I

u

u E nj

o ^ '0fS CT\ (S

g §

a. cS

I" t/i ^ ^

17(N 00 m (N

.„ „ "c r "cCTJ ^ ^ ^ T-> I—• , j _ ^

X oa.

Is

u u o

=3

crer-

D

iai/i'§>oo•S

546


awareness. However, effect sizes calculatedfor pre- to post-test gains were generallyhigher than effect sizes calculated with a treat-ment and comparison group. The pre- to post-test effects in the Vaughn et al. study providean indication of positive outcomes for stu-dents, but these effects cannot be accuratelycompared to the treatment versus comparisongroup effects in the other studies.

Interventions implemented over8-9 months. A full range of effects weredemonstrated for interventions implementedover approximately one school year. No ef-fects were found for students with readingdisabilities receiving an intervention of ana-lytic phonics (onset-rime word patterns) incor-porated with writing and reading phoneticreaders when compared to students receivingwhole-word instruction on measures of wordreading, spelling, and phonemic awareness(mean ES = -0.05; [range = -0.23 to 0.27];Foorman et al., 1997). However, a mean effectof 0.27 (range = 0.05 to 0.59) was demon-strated for a synthetic phonics intervention incomparison to the whole-word instruction onthese same measures. Mathes et al. (2005)reported on two interventions provided forapproximately 8 months in addition to en-hanced classroom instruction. One interven-tion provided a standardized protocol includ-ing explicit phonics instruction with decodahletext and comprehension strategies (Proactive),whereas the other intervention provided wordwork and reading in leveled books based onindividual student needs (Responsive). Whencompared to the outcomes of students receiv-ing only the enhanced classroom instruction,hoth interventions yielded similar mean ef-fects (mean ES = 0.33 [range = 0.00 to 0.63]for Proactive; mean ES = 0.31 [range = 0.22to 0.53] for Responsive). Effects specificallyfor comprehension were 0.21 and 0.30 forthe Proactive and Responsive interventions,respectively.

Higher mean effects were revealed fortwo intervention studies implementing SoundPartners with and without text reading for 8months (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton. 2005). Incomparison to students receiving typical

school instruction, the mean effect size forstudents in the intervention with text was 0.64(range = 0.17 to 0.99) and the mean effectsize for students in the intervention withouttext reading was 0.65 (range = 0.13 to 1.33).The same intervention with decodable textreading was implemented over 35 weeks in aprevious study (Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton. &Jenkins, 2002). In this study, students in-creased standard scores into the average rangeon measures of reading, spelling, and wordidentification by the end of the intervention.The 2002 study also examined a second inter-vention (Thinking Partners) for second-grad-ers that was implemented for 35 weeks. TheThinking Partners intervention incorporatedgrade-level trade hooks and comprehensionstrategy instruction and yielded a mean effectof 0.23 (range = 0.09 to 0.38) over students intypical school instruction (Vadasy et al.,2002).

There were three studies yielding largereffects following intervention for 8-9 months.Two of the studies examined the same interven-tion (Early Steps) with first-grade students. Thestudents were provided with supported readingand rereading of leveled books as well as phon-ics instruction with a focus on word patterns.These interventions were compared to studentsreceiving a small-group, pull-out interventionprovided by the school. On measures of wordrecognition, word attack, spelling, and compns-hension. the mean effect sizes were 0.76(range = 0.68 to 0.83; Morris, Tyner. & Pemey,2000) and 0.74 (range = 0.59 to 0.91; Santa &Hoien, 1999). A similar intervention reported byMiller (2003) also yielded high effects on infor-mal measures of word recognition and spellingin comparison to students who did not receiveintervention (mean ES = 0.84 [range = 0.71to 1.09]). In addition, a single-subject study ex-amining seven students with leaming disabilitiesdemonstrated gains in fluency, with all but onesnident reading at least 70-105 words perminute after 9 months of intervention. Vellutinoand Scanlon (2002) provided intensive interven-tion (two semesters) in first and second grade tostudents demonstrating either low growth orvery low growth and reported 75% of lowgrowth and 67% of very low growth students

547


nu

U

<4Qa

3

•s

•a

D.

PT3Ccd

C

o

Ic

u

in

— g i — 0 0 — • —

o o o — o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

O O O O O O O O O O O O C J O O O O O O O O O O O

c 2

o c S

prt — L 2 ^ [ .

- U H S U

CO

flua:u>•a

din

aa:

>'3aUl

Of .

548

implications From Extensive Interventions

U

U

o oI i

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I I I I I I

I8.

00a

-•3ua.

1PCOX

a

itio

bJDou

•c•p

BS

^cooU

CUQ

a3S.CO

a

1-2

Dev

X

c

itio

01)c

"Ho

COX

00c;^

enta

mdo{

>

eadi

00

Pas

s

c

itio

t j

c• B

c o

Rec

B

IT-R

<

•Ho

*soi

an p^

•a >

S S oa. .. .... — CN

H U U

-IaCfl

m CO

549

School Psychology Review, 2007, Volume 36, No, 4

U

itec

u

>p

uv.>

I

T32to

*4 r 5 D P c '"• o rO O o fs o ^^ "-^ t^ r*Jo o o o o o o o oI I I

:=S

p po o o o o o o o o o d o o

O O O O O O C > 0 — ' < - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U


u S o O lo DO r - '"O CTs(S —" O CO (*1 r^ (N

d o o d o o o o

Id d d d — ^ d — — d d d d d d d d d

U

II

3 oft: ^

•a

U H U

L 5 « U U

551


obtained standard scores of at least 90 on pas-sage comprehension al the end of the third grade.Students were provided with intervention thatwas based on individual student needs and in-cluded daily instruction in phonological skills,irTegular word reading, writing, and reading-connected text.

Interventions implemented for morethan 1 school year. Interventions imple-mented for more than 1 school year yielded asimilar range of effect sizes as the shorterintervention periods. Torgesen et al. (1997,1999) implemented three interventions incomparison to a no-treatment control. Each ofthe interventions was implemented over 2.5years with students starting in the middle ofkindergarten and continuing through the endof second grade. A phonics intervention em-bedded with word-level games, basa! stories,and writing activities yielded a mean effectof 0.22 (range = -0.23 to 0.91). Similarly, anintervention reinforcing skills and activitiestaught in the regular clas.sroom reading pro-gram yielded a mean effect of 0.17 (range =-0.20 to 0.79). In contrast, a phonics inter-vention with PA, letter sounds, decoding andencoding taught in isolation along with read-ing of controlled text (later trade books), andfluency instruction yielded a mean effect sizeofO.64 (range = 0.14 to 1.21)-Effects sizes ontwo measures of reading comprehension forthe students participating in the phonics inter-vention were 0.30. and 0.14

Gunn et al. (2000) reported a mean ef-fect of 0.39 (range = 0.27 to 0.73) on mea-sures of fluency, word reading, word attack,vocabulary, and comprehension, for a 2-yearexplicit phonics intervention (Reading Mas-tery and Corrective Reading). The smallestgains were seen on fluency and comprehen-sion measures.

Dev et al. (2002) reported 10 of 11 stu-dents achieved grade-level performance orhigher in spelling and demonstrated improve-ment in reading after 2 years of intervention.Specific data on student levels of performancewere not provided. Similarly. Englert et al.(1998) reported 13 of 18 students at or abovegrade-level performance on oral reading accu-

552

racy as measured by the passage level that astudent could read at 90% accuracy after 2years of intervention.

Effects by Instmctional Group Size

Ten studies implemented interventions forstudents in a 1:1 format with one teacher in-structing one student (Dev et al., 2002; Jenkinset al., 2004; Miller. 2003; Morris et al., 2000;Santa & Hoien, 1999; Torgesen et al., 1997,1999; Vadasy et al., 1997.2002, 2005; Vellutino& Scanlon, 2002). Eight studies implementedinterventions with instructional groups rangingin size from two to eight students (Englert el iti.,1998; Foorman et al., 1997; Gunn et al., 2000;Mathes el al., 2005; O'Connor et al.. 1996;Schneider et ai., 2000; Snider, 1997; Vaughn,Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003).

One-to-one instruction. Jenkins et al.(2004) and Torgesen et ai. (1997, 1999) re-ported similar intervention effects on studentoutcomes after providing instruction in a I;!grouping format. Mean effect sizes of 0.67(range - 0.35 to 0.99) and 0.62 (range - 0.41to 1.11) were found for treatment groups in theJenkins et al. study. One intervention withexplicit phonics instruction in the Torgesen etal. study yielded a mean effect size of 0.64(range = 0.14 to 1.21). However, smaller ef-fects were seen for the embedded phonicsintervention (mean ES = 0.22 [range = -0.23to 0.91]) and for the intervention reinforcingthe classroom reading program (meanES = 0.17 [range = -0.20 to 0.79]).

Three studies by the same research team(Vadasy et al, 1997. 2002, 2005) examined theSound Partners intervention, a first-grade, phon-ics-based intervention using decodable books forreading. Mean effects were 0.50 (range = 0.31to 0.78; Vadasy et al., 1997) and 0.64(range = 0.17 to 0.99; Vadasy et al., 2005).Vadasy et al. (2005) also examined the interven-tion without the text reading component withsimilar results (mean ES = 0.65 [range = 0.13to 1.33]). Vadasy et al. (2002) combined thefirst-grade intervention with a second-grade in-tervention incorporating comprehension strategyinstruction and grade-level trade books. Meaneffects for students participating in botli the


phonics and strategy interventions were 0.64(range = -0.05 lo 0.92) whereas mean effectstor students completing only the strategy inter-vention were 0.23 (range = 0.09 to 0.38) whencompared to students receiving typical schoolservices.

Two studies yielding larger effects im-plemented the same intervention incorporatingreading or rereading leveled text with phonicsinstruction in word patterns (mean ES = 0.76[range = 0.68 to 0.83]; Morris et al., 2000;mean ES = 0.74 [range = 0.59 to 0.91]);Santa & Hoien, 1999). A similar interventionreported by Miller (2003) produced effectscomparable to Morris et al. and Santa andHoien for intervention participants comparedlo students not receiving intervention (meanES = 0.84 [range = 0.71 to 1.09]), althougheffects on fluency and comprehension werenot measured. Students in the interventionwere also compared to students receivingschool-implemented Reading Recovery. Asmaller mean effect in favor of the school-implemented Reading Recovery was realized(mean ES = -0.13 [range = -0.03 to -0.18];MiUer).

Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) provided1:1 instruction to first- and second-grade stu-dents at risk for reading difficulties for twosemesters. Thirty minutes of daily instructionincluding 15 min of reading connected textand skill instruction was provided. Studentsdemonstrating low growth and very lowgrowth in basic skills after one semester ofintervention were provided the second semes-ter of intervention and followed. Approxi-mately 75% of the students requiring two se-mesters of intervention reached average levelson measures of comprehension as measuredmore than a year after the research interven-tion concluded. However, many students stilldemonstrated below-average levels on basicskills such as word identification and wordattack at post-test.

Group instruction. When examininggroup size, we iu"e only able to provide a rangeof effects rather than provide direct compari-sons between approaches (e.g., 1:1 and smallgroup) because experimental manipulation of

these group sizes was not built into the inter-vention studies we examined. A description ofthese studies reveals that providing instructionto students in small groups appears to be as-sociated with smaller effects than 1:1 instruc-tion. However, it is important to note thatgroup size was not directly compared in any ofthese studies and that causal inference cannotbe made.

Gunn et al. (2000) and Mathes et al.(2(X)5) implemented interventions in instruc-tional groups of 2-3 students yielding similarresults; the mean effect size for the studentsparticipating in the Reading Mastery or Correc-tive Reading interventions was 0.39 (range= 0.27 to 0.73; Gunn et al.) and mean effectsizes for the Proactive and Responsive Readinginterventions were 0.33 (range = O.(X) to 0.63)and 0.31 (range = 0.22 to 0.53). respectively(Mathes et al.). It should be noted that 1:1 in-struction was provided to students in the Gunn etal. study if the group instruction was not feasible.Also, the comparison group in the Mathes et al.study was students receiving enhanced class-room instruction—thus smaller effects could beassociated with the comparison students" en-hanced performance.

Smaller mean effects were seen for onestudy implementing a PA intervention tokindergartners in groups of 3-6 students(mean ES = 0.18 [range = -0.43 to 0.75];O'Connor et al., 1996). Students with disabil-ities in the O'Connor et al. study were com-pared with peers integrated in general educa-tion classrooms who also received the sameintervention but in a larger group. The com-parison of two groups receiving the same in-tervention in the O'Connor et al. study maydefiate the effect size relative to the olherstudies reported in this synthesis wherein ef-fect sizes were calculated by comparing inter-vention students to groups of students who didnot receive the intervention (Swanson,Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). A second study imple-menting a PA intervention to at-risk kinder-gartners compared outcomes to students not atrisk (Schneider et al.. 2000). On measures ofPA, students in the interventions outperformednot-at-risk students. Foilow-up measures con-ducted 1 and 2 years after intervention indicated

5S3


the students not at risk outperfonned at-risk stu-dents who received the PA intervention on mea-sures of decoding and comprehension,

Foorman et al. (1997) reported out-comes for students receiving intervention ingroup sizes that averaged ahout 8 students.A mean effect of 0.27 (range = 0.05 to 0.59)was reported for a synthetic phonics interven-tion whereas no effects were found for ananalytic phonics intervention (mean ES =-0.05 [range = -0.23 to 0.271) when com-pared with students receiving instruction insight words delivered through teacher-directedcenters.

Three additional studies without a com-parison group delivered intervention to partici-pants in groups (Englert et al.. 1998; Snider.1997; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman,2003). All studies noted overall student gainsfrom pretest to post-test, with Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman reporting standardizedmean difference effects ranging from 0.53to 6.06 for students receiving intervention ininstruetional groups of three.

Effects by Grade Level

We would like to remind the reader thatwe are only able to describe the findings bygrade groups and cannot provide analysis ofstudies that directly manipulated grade-levelvariables to determine findings. Thirteen stud-ies provided intervention to students begin-ning in kindergarten or first grade and fivestudies provided intervention to students be-ginning in second or third grade. Englert et al.(1998) also included two students who beganthe intervention in first grade. Gunn et al.(2000) provided intervention to students inGrades 1-3. Data were not disaggregated bygrade level.

Interventions for kindergarten andfirst grade. Two studies implemented inter-ventions in kindergarten. O'Connor et al.(1996) reported mean effect sizes of 0.18(range = -0.43 to 0.75). Schneider et al.reported on two interventions for at-risk kin-dergarten students (PA and PA -I- lettersounds). Students in both interventions outper-formed a comparison group of not-at-risk stu-

554

dents on measures of PA at post-test. Thenot-at-risk students participated in typical Ger-man classrooms consisting of social eventsand games. By the end of first and secondgrade, students receiving the PA interventionfell behind their not-at-risk peers on measuresof decoding and comprehension; however,students who had received the combined PAand letter-sound intervention obtained out-comes equivalent to the not-at-risk group onthese same measures (with IQ used as a co-variate in the analyses).

Several studies implemented interven-tions for first-grade students. Mean effectsof 0.33 (range = 0.00 to 0.63) and 0.31(range = 0.22 to 0.53) were reported for Pro-active and Responsive interventions, respec-tively (Mathes et al., 2005). Three studies withsimilar interventions incorporating instructionin word pattems along with teacher-supportedreading and rereading of leveled books foundhigher mean effects (mean ES = 0.74 to 0.84;Miller, 2003; Morris et al., 2000; Santa &Hoien, 1999). Three additional studies of first-graders implementing variations of the SoundPartners intervention yielded mean effectsof 0.50 to 0.67 (Jenkins et al., 2004; Vadasy etal.. 1997, 2005). The smaller effects reportedfor Proactive and Responsive (Mathes et al.,2005) may be partially explained by the over-all enhanced reading instruction provided toall students, including those in the comparisongroup.

Four additional studies began interven-tion with K-1 students and continued inter-vention through second grade. Vadasy et al.(2002) provided 2 years of intervention forstudents beginning in first grade and continu-ing through second grade. Sound Partners wasimplemented in first grade and Thinking Part-ners, an intervention incorporating grade-leveltrade books with comprehension strategy in-struction, was implemented in second grade.The mean effect size for measures of wordreading, word attack, spelling, fluency, andcomprehension was 0.64 (range = -0.05to 0.92). Similar effects were seen for studentsparticipating in a multisensory, explicit phon-ics intervention from kindergarten throughsecond grade (mean ES = 0.64 [range = 0.14


to 1.211; Torgesen et al., 1997, 1999). How-ever, smaller effects were seen for two alter-native interventions also implemented fromkindergarten through second grade (Embed-ded Phonics, mean ES = 0.22 [range = -0.23to 0.91]; Regular Classroom Support, meanES = 0.17 [range = -0.20 to 0.79], Torgesenet al.). Dev et al. (2002) reported student in-creases in spelling to levels at or above gradelevel for 10 of 11 students over 2 years (first tosecond grade). Similarly, Vellutino and Scan-Ion (2002) reported that 75% of low-growthand 67% of very-low-growth students achievedstandard scores of 90 or higher in passagecomprehension in third grade, more than ayear after intervention concluded. Two yearsafter intervention, in fourth grade, 60% of thelow-growth students and 42% ofthe very-low-growth students scored at or above grade levelon silent reading comprehension.

Interventions for second and thirdgrade. Vadasy et al. (2002) compared theThinking Partners intervention provided tostudents in second grade to typical school ser-vices, with a mean effect of 0.23 Irange = 0.09to 0.38J after 35 weeks of intervention. This is incontrast to the higher effects seen for the SoundPartners -t- Thinking Partners intervention begunin first grade that was described in the previ-ous section. Similarly, Foorman et al. (1997)found a mean effect of 0.27 (range = 0.05to 0.59) for a synthetic phonics interventioncompared to a sight-word intervention pro-vided to second- and third-grade students. Noeffects were found for the students participat-ing in the analytic phonics intervention (meanES = -0.05 [range = -0.23 to 0.27]; Foor-man et al., 1997).

Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hick-man (2003) reported pre- to post-test gains forsecond-grade students participating in an in-tervention incorporating PA, fluency, wordanalysis, comprehension, and spelling. Ofthe 35 students participating in the interven-tion for 100 or more sessions, 24 students metexit criteria for the intervention. Englert et al.(1998) and Snider (1997) also reported highnumbers of students on grade level in reading

after receiving intervention. No comparisongroups were available for these studies.

Effects by Intervention Protocol: Highand Low Standardization

To examine effects related to interventionprotocol, we first attempted to classify studiesinto standardized and problem-solving interven-tions. We detincd standardized inten^entions asthose with well-defined daily lessons (many arescripted) and material selection. We definedproblem-solving protocols as interventions im-plemented with daily lessons (components, ma-terials, skills, and strategies) planned based ondetermination of student needs through a prob-lem-solving process (defining the pmblem, ana-lyzing reasons for the problem, developing anintervention p l^ . evaluating the plan; NationalAssociation of State Directors of Special Educa-tion, 2005). However, we were unable to locateany studies of extensive interventions im-plementing a problem-solving approach. In-stead, we found that the intervention de-scriptions provided a range in the degree ofstandardization. Thus, we classified studiesas either high or low on standardization ofthe intervention implemented.

Studies were classified as "high stan-dardization" if the authors described interven-tions as having well-defined lessons and ma-terials and the same lessons were provided toall students, with possible adjustments madeto accommodate student levels. Studies wereclassified as "low standardization" if the au-thors described interventions with lessons thatwere less well-defined and provided opportu-nities for the teacher to respond to students'needs in the skills and strategies taught and thematerials used. In this section, we contrast thehigh standardization interventions, interven-tions for which instruction is prescribed inadvance and provided to students with similarreading difficulties, with the low standardiza-tion interventions, interventions thai often pro-vide many of tbe same elements of instructionbut are largely organized by the teacher inresponse to students' needs. It should be notedthat high or low standardization does not referto the extent to which the interventions were

555


based on previous research. Furthermore, it isimportant to note that we provided the codingfor high and low standardization based onspecified criteria and that high and low stan-dardization were only compared directly inone study (Mathes et al.. 2005).

High standardization. Four of the in-terventions we classitied as high standardiza-tion yielded mean effects ranging from 0.23to 0.39 (Foorman et al., 1997; Gunn et al.,2000; Mathes et ah, 2005 [Proactive]; Vadasyet al., 2002 IThinking Partners]). AU otherhigh standardized interventions yielded meaneffects ranging from 0.50 to 0.67 (Jenkins etal., 2004; Torgesen et al., 1997; 1999 [PA +Synthetic Phonics]; Vadasy et al.. 1997, 2002,2005 [Sound Partners + Thinking Partners]).

Low standardization. Similarly, fourof the interventions we classified as low stan-dardization yielded mean effects rangingfrom 0.17 to 0.31 (Mathes et al., 2005 [Re-sponsive], O'Connor et al., 1996; Torgesen etal., 1997; 1999 [Embedded Phonics and Reg-ular Classroom Support]). Three interventionsyielded larger mean effects ranging from 0.74to 0.84 (Miller, 2003; Morris et al.. 2000;Santa & Hoien. 1999). In addition, Vaughn.Linan-Thompson. and Hickman (2003) re-ported large pre- to post-test effects for stu-dents whose response allowed them to exitintervention as well as students who did notexit interventions after 30 weeks. Vellutinoand Scanlon (2002) reported the majority ofstudents receiving intervention who initiallydemonstrated low levels of response to inter-vention obtained average to above averageperfonnance on measures of comprehension.Dev et al. (2002) and Englert et al. (1998)reported the large majority of students were ongrade level in reading or spelling afterintervention.

Discussion . ,<

This synthesis reports the research onextensive early reading interventions so thateducators will have research-based informa-tion to facilitate decision making witbin RTIframeworks. For the purpose of this synthesis,

SS6

extensive interventions were defined as thosethat conducted 100 or more sessions. Instruc-tional features, including the duration of tbeintervention, grouping procedures for imple-menting the intervention, and describing moreor less standardized intervention approacbes,were described.

Tbe findings suggest generally positiveoutcomes for students witb reading difficultiesand disabilities participating in extensive in-terventions. Tbese interventions suggest higbfeasibility of implementation as demonstratedby 14 of tbe 18 studies using school personnelfor all or part of tbe implementation. However,practitioners interested in implementing exten-sive interventions need to realize tbat the per-sonnel in all studies were provided specificintervention training that included feedback onimplementation quality.

The studies with the highest effects em-phasized botb phonics instruction and textreading. In some of these studies the studentsused decodable text during reading instructionwhereas in other studies the text was at stu-dents' reading level but was not necessarilystrictly decodable. Tbe reported phonics com-ponent included in the interventions incorpo-rated instruction in either letter-sound corre-spondence witb word blending or word pat-terns such as rimes. A few studies alsointegrated encoding or spelling witbin tbephonics instruction.

Implementing RTI includes the use ofinterventions that increase in intensity basedon student need. In 2000, Torgesen called forfurther examination of the intensity of instruc-tion required to eliminate reading failure inchildren. Intensity can be increased in a num-ber of ways, including decreasing group size,increasing time in intervention, and providingmore explicit instruction (Torgesen. 2000). Inthis synthesis, we defined extensive interven-tions based on number of intervention sessions(100 sessions or more) and examined the rel-ative intensity in two ways; duration of inter-vention and instructional group size. Altboughtbe interventions synthesized reported rangesfrom 5 months to 2.5 years of instruction, fewdifferences were seen in the magnitude of theeffect sizes based on tbe duration of instruc-


tion. This does not mean that students whospent more time in intervention did not makegreater gains or progress toward closing thegap with the comparison students, just thatrelative impact as measured by effect sizeswere not significantly larger. Further exami-nation of the total number of hours of inter-vention provided to students may extend ourunderstanding of the relative impact based onduration ofthe intervention. Unfortunately, wewere unable to estimate the total hours ofintervention provided to students in the largemajority of the studies based on the informa-tion provided in the article and thus could notaccurately analyze student outcomes in rela-tion to hours of intervention.

A second way to increase interventionintensity may be to decrease instructionalgroup size. We examined student outcomes inthe studies implementing interventions in a 1:1format (one teacher with one student) as wellas studies that implemented interventions ingroups (ranging from two to eight students).Studies implementing extensive interventionsin 1:1 formats appear to be associated withoverall higher effects than studies implement-ing interventions in groups. However, thisfinding has several caveats. Because of thelow number of studies examining small groupinstruction (2-4 students), we were unable todirectly compare the effects of small groupinstruction to the effects of 1:1 instruction inthis synthesis. Furthermore, at least one of thestudies (Mathes et al.. 2(X)5) had a robustcomparison group that was provided enhancedclassroom instruction, mitigating the overallintervention effects. The three studies with thelargest group sizes reported the lowest effectsamong the studies implementing group in-struction (Foonnan et al., 1997; O'Connor etal.. 19%; Schneider et al., 2Q00).

Early intervention has been heralded asa promising avenue for reducing reading dif-ficulties in recognition of the persistent diffi-culties students face when they do not leam toread in the primary grades (Francis. Shaywitz,Stuebing. Shaywitz. & Fletcher. 1996; Jenkins& O'Connor, 2002; Juel, 1988). The results ofthis synthesis further suggest that interven-tions provided early, beginning in first grade,

are associated with higher effects than inter-ventions beginning in second or third grade.The difficulties students face in reading asthey enter second or third grade are morecomplex than in first grade, making significantgains more difficult to achieve. Certainly, thenumber of skills students must obtain to readsuccessfully increases as students progressthrough the grades. Another factor to considermay be the severity of the reading difficultiesexperienced by students in the second- andthird-grade samples. For example, therewere three studies examining only studentswith identified leaming disabilities and each ofthese studies occurred in the second and thirdgrades. Thus, students vi'ith the most severereading difficulties were represented in thestudies conducted in older grades, likely influ-encing outcomes.

Screening and measurement error is an-other reason that students in kindergarten andfirst-grade interventions may have less severereading difficulties than students in second andthird grade. Measures available for identifyingstudents at risk for reading difficulties and/ordisabilities in the early grades purposefully"overidentify" students as at risk for readingdifficulties to ensure that all students who pos-sibly have problems will be provided earlysupport. As a result, there are likely more falsepositives with less severe difficulties in kin-dergarten and first-grade samples than in thehigher grades and this could explain the highereffects observed with the interventions begin-ning in first grade.

As RTI implementation has increasedover the past few years, questions related tothe relative effectiveness of standardized andproblem-solving protocols for interventionhave arisen (Fuchs et al., 2003; National As-sociation of State Directors of Special Educa-tion, 2(K)5). We were interested in examiningthe research evidence on problem solving andstandardized interventions. Unfortunately, wewere unable to locate a study examining in-tensive interventions using a problem-solvingapproach. As a result., we could not reporteffects of this protocol implementation. It maybe that problem-solving protocols have more


typically been implemented in less intensiveinterventions.

To provide some preliminary informa-tion on the effects related to varying interven-tion protocols, we examined studies imple-menting more standardized protocols {well-defined, previously developed lessons) tostudies that implemented less standardizedprotocols (lessons largely organized by theteacher based on student need). There were nodifferences in overall outcomes between stud-ies implementing these two types of protocols.This finding should be considered while keep-ing in the mind the low number of studiesavailable. However, the finding does alignwith a study directly comparing more and lessstandardized interventions: Mathes et al.(2005) reported statistically significant differ-ences in favor of students in the more stan-dardized intervention on only one outcomemeasure—word attack. Effect sizes were mod-erate for students in both conditions.

Implicationi§ and Limitations

School psychologists and special educa-tors play an integral part in the decision mak-ing of any RTI implementation. Expert knowl-edge related to the efficacy of interventions inrelation to varying student needs is pertinent toeffective decision making. When RTI is im-plemented, the most intensive interventionsare typically reserved for students with themost significant difficulties, usually providedafter a student demonstrates insufficient re-sponse to generally effective general educa-tion instruction and perhaps less intensive in-tervention. In this synthesis we examined in-terventions implemented for 100 sessions ormore. However, only one study synthesizedhere examined the quality of instruction stu-dents received in general education (Mathes etal., 2(K)5) and only two studies examined in-tervention for students who had demonstratedprevious insufficient response (Vadasy et al.,2002; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson & Hickman.2003). As a result, the student samples in themajority of the studies synthesized may haveincluded student.s who had not yet receivedeffective reading instruction or intervention

before Ihe study. Many of the participants inthese studies were "at-risk" readers and maynot represent students with the most signifi-cant reading difficulties and/or disabilities.

In implementing RTI, the decision mak-ing of school psychologists will be improvedwith data related to students' responses ingeneral education (without intervention andrelative to others in the class), as well as dataafter students are provided supplemental inter-vention. Adequate access and use of this in-formation assists in referring and identifyingstudents with reading disabilities and planningfor more intensive interventions to meet stu-dent needs. Future research examining inten-sive interventions specifically for studentswith insufficient response to previous inter-vention will be a high priority for the field toinform best practice for meeting the needs ofstudents with severe reading difficulties and/ordisabilities.

Currently, we know considerably lessabout students whose response to typicallyeffective interventions is low and who requirenot just extensive but highly intensive inter-ventions. From our own research and experi-ence, we have learned that students who havenot responded to extensive and intensive in-terventions often demonstrate special needs inmany areas (e.g., autism, attention deficit, lowlanguage) and require special education inter-ventions that are highly individualized to ad-dress their multiple learning needs (Vaughn etal, 2007). Our experience is that highly spe-cialized personnel will be required to providethese interventions.

Future Research

We synthesized studies examining ex-tensive interventions for students with readingdifficulties and disabilities to explore charac-teristics of interventions associated with higheffects. Although this infonnation identifiesseveral areas for future research and examina-tion, this synthesis cannot provide causal evi-dence related to the effects of instructionalgroup size, duration, grade level of interven-tion, or level of standardization on outcomesfor students (with the exception of one study.


Mathes et al., 2005). Across the studies syn-thesized bere, many intervention componentsvaried and it is not possible to isolate tbespecific effects of duration, group size, gradelevel, or level of standardization. Thus, wereport a range of effects for each of thesefactors of interest rather than having adequatestudies to make direct comparisons betweenintervention approaches {recognizing that thelatter approach would require experimentalmanipulation). It is for this reason that wethink future research that directly addressesthese factors of interest through experimentalstudies would be highly valuable and furtherour confidence in recommending features ofintensive intervention approaches and theiroutcomes.

Additional information on the use ofproblem-solving approaches is also needed.Although individualized instruction is gener-ally seen as the hallmark of special education,there is a lack of empirical evidence examin-ing the effects of a problem-solving approachfor intensive interventions. Further examina-tion of the effects of problem-solving inter-ventions designed to provide differentiated in-struction will give us valuable informationregarding effective instruction for studentswith significant reading difficuities anddisabilities.

In defining an extensive intervention forthis synthesis, we selected the duration of stu-dent participation in the intervention (100 ormore sessions). As mentioned previously, thenumber of hours of student participation couldalso define the intensity of an intervention;however, we were unable to obtain reliabledata (number of days and length of session) toselect studies based on this definition. The useof duration only as a definition for extensiveinterventions means that there may be studiesthat provided more hours of intervention inreading that did not meet our criteria.

Positive outcomes for students partici-pating in extensive interventions have beendemonstrated in numerous studies. Further re-search is needed to address many critical ques-tions including whether adjusting and chang-ing interventions for students most at risk isassociated with greater acceleration in student

leaming. Further examination of interventionprotocols for implementation is warranted toassist in decision making related to the mosteffective interventions to meet the needs ofstudents with severe reading difficulties anddisabilities. •• ,

References

Bergen. J. R., & KralochwUI, T. R. (1990). Behavioralconsultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.

Bums, M. K.. Appleton. J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005).Mela-anatytic review of response-to-inter\'entioii re-search: Examining fieid-based and research-imple-mented models. Joumal of Psychoeducational Assess-ment. 23. 281-394.

Dev. P. C , Doyle, B. A.. & Valente. B. (2002). Labelsneedn't stick: "At-risk" first graders rescued with ap-propriate intervention. Joumal of Education for Stu-dents Placed At Risk, 7, 327-332.

Englert. C. S.. Mariage. T. V.. Garmon. M. A.. & Tarrant.K. L. (1998). Accelerating reading progress in earlyliteracy project classrooms. Remedial and Special Ed-ucation. 79(3). 142-159.

Fletcher. J. M.. Coulter, W. A.. Reschly. D. J.. & Vaughn,S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition andidentification of leaming disabilities: Some quesbonsand answers. Annals of Dysle.xia, 54, 304-331.

Foonnan, B. R. (2(X)3). Preventing and remediating read-ing difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore:York.

Foonnan, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D.. Mehta. P.,Schatschneider, C , & Fletcher. J. M. (1997). Earlyinterventions for children with reading disabilities. Sci-entific Studies of Reading, 1. 2.55-276.

Fnincis. D. J.. Shaywitz. S. E.. Stuebing. K. K.. Shaywitz,B. A., & Fletcher. J. M. (1996). Developmental lagversus deficit models of reading disability: A longitu-dinal, individual growth curves analysis. Joumal ofEducational Psychology. SS. 3-17.

Fuchs, D.. Mock. D., Morgan. P. L., & Young, C. U(2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions,evidence, and implications for the learning disabilitiesconstruct. Leaming Disabilities Research and Prac-tice. 18. 157-171.

Gunn. B., Biglan, A.. Smolkowski. K.. & Ary, D. (2000).The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decodingskills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in earlyelementary school. The Joumal of Special Educa-tion. 34, 90-103.

Gunn. B., Smolkowski. K.. Biglan. A.. & Black. C.(2002). Supplemental instriiction in decoding skills forHispanic and non Hispanic students in early elemen-tary school: A follow-up. The Joumal of Special Ed-ucation. 36. 69-79.

Hedges. L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass'sestimator of effect size and related estimatois. Joumalof Education Statistics. 6. 107-128.

Ikeda, M. J.. Grimes. J.. Tilly. W. D., Allison. R.. Kums,S.. & Stumme. J. (2002). Implementing an interven-tion-based approach to service delivery: A case exam-ple. In M. R. Shinn. H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.),Intervention for academic and behavior problems 11:Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 53-69).

559


Washington, E)C: National Association of School Psy-chologists.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). What WorksClearinghouse Sru<ly Review Standards. Retrieved Jan-uar>' 10, 2005. from What Works Clearinghouse Website: http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/study_standards_flnal.pdf

Jenkins, J. R., & O'Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identifi-cation and intervention for young children with read-ing/lcaming disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson,& D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of leamingdisabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99-149). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy,P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts insupplemental firsl-grade tutoring. Scienriftc Studies ofReading. 8. 53-85.

Juel, C. (1988). Leaming to read and write: A longitudinalstudy of fifty-four children from first through fourthgrade. Joumai of Educational Psychologv. 80. 437-447.

Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Evidence-based intervention in school psychology: Conceptualfoundations of the procedural Coding Manual of Divi-sion 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psy-chology Task Force. School Psychology Quarterly.}7(4), 341-389.

Lemer. J. W. (2000). Leaming disabilities: Theorie.s, di-agnasis. and teaching .strategies (8th ed.). Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning dis-abilities: Contributions from scientists supported bythe National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment. Joumai of Child Neurolog\. 10, S120-SI26.

Mathes, P. G., Demon, C. A., Fletcher. J. M.. Anthony,J. L., Francis, D. J.. & Schatschneider. C. (2005). Theeffects of theoretically different instruction and studentcharacteristics on the skills of struggling readers.Reading Research Quarterly. 4U, 148-182.

McCardle. P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evi-dence in reading research, Baltimore, MD: Paul H.Brookes.

Miller, S. D. (2003). Panners-in-reading: Using classrooma.ssistants to provide tutorial assistance to strugglingfirst-grade readers. Journal of Education for StudentsPlaced At Risk. 8. 333-349.

Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Pemey, J. (2000). Early steps:Replicating the effect of a first-grade reading interven-tion program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92.681-693.

National Association of State Directors of Special Ed-ucation. (2005). Response to intervention: Policyconsiderations and implementation. Alexandria,VA: Author.

O'Connor, R. E., Notari-Syverson. A.. & Vadasy, P. F.(1996). Ladders lo literacy: The effects of teacher-ledphonological activities for kindergarten children withand without disabilities. Exceptional Children. 63.117-130.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: Thecase for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New Yorft; Guil-ford Press.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti. C. A., Pesetsky, D..& Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological sci-

ence informs the teaching of reading. PsychologicalScience in the Public Intere.^. 2. 31-73.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No.101-110.

Reschly, D. J. (2005). Leaming disabilities identifica-tion: Primary intervention, secondary intervention,and then what? Journal of Leaming Disabilities, 38,510-515.

Santa. C. M., & Hoien, T. (1999). An assessment ofEarly Steps: A program for early intervention ofreading problems. Reading Research Quarterly. 34.54-79.

Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Train-ing phonological skills and letter knowledge in chil-dren at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kin-dergarten intervention programs. Joumai of Educa-tional Psychology. 92. 284-295.

Snider, V. E. (1997). Transfer of decoding skills lo aliterature basal. Leaming Disabilities Research &Practice. / 2, 54-62.

Swanson, H. L.. Hoskyn. M.. & Ue , C. (1999). Interven-tions for .itudents with leaming disabilities. New York:Guilford Press.

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in responseto early interventions in reading: The lingering prob-lem of treatment resisters- learning Di.sabilities Re-search & Practice. 15. 55-64.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner. R. K., & Rashone, C. A. (1997).Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabil-ities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies ofReading, I. 217-234.

Torgesen. J. K.. Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A.. Rose, E.,Lindamood, P.. & Conway, T. (1999). fVeventing read-ing failure in young children with phonological pro-cessing disabilities: Group and individual responses toinstruction. Joumai of Educational Psychology, 91,579-593.

Vadasy. P. F., Jenkins. J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K..& O'Connor, R. E, (1997). Community-based earlyreading intervention for at-risk first graders. LearningDisabilities Research <S Practice. 12, 29-39.

Vadasy. P. F., Sanders, E. A.. & Peyton, J. A. (2005).Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level in.struction in supplemental tutoring: How textmatters. Joumai of Leaming Disabilities, 38, 364-380.

Vadasy, P. p., Sanders. E. A., Peyton, J. A., & Jenkins,J. R. (2(W2). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closerlook at the conditions for effective early literacy tutor-ing. Leaming Disabilities Research & Practice. 17,in-iA\.

Vaughn, S., & Fuchs. L. S. (2003). Redefining leamingdisabilities as inadequate response to instruction: Thepromise and potential problems. Leaming DisabilitiesResearch A. Practice. 18, 137-146.

Vaughn. S.. Kim. A., Sloan. C. V. M., Hughes. M. T..Elbaum, B., & Sridhar, D. (2003). Social skills inter-ventions for young children with disabilities: A syn-thesis of group design studies. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 24, 2-15.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S,. & Hickman, P. (2003).Response to instruction as a means of identifying .stu-dents with reading/learning disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 69, 391-409.

560


Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Linan-Thompson. S., & Mur-ray, C. (2007). Monitoring response lo interventionfor students at-risk for reading difticulties: High andlow responders. In S. R. Jimerson. M. K. Bums, &A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of re-sponse to intervention: The science and practice ofassessment and intervention (pp. 234-243).Springer Science: New York.

VeUutino, R R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002), The interactivestrategies approach to reading intervention. Contempo-rary Educational Psychology. 27, 573-635.

Veilutino, F. R.. Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003).Toward distinguishing between cognitive and expe-riential deficits as primary sources of difficult to

remediate and remediated poor readers. In B. R.Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating readingdifficulties (pp. 73-120). Baltimore: York.

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Wexler. J., Swan.son. E.. Ed-monds, M. E.. & Kim. A. (2006). A synthesis ofspelling and reading interventions and their effects onthe spelling outcomes of students with LD. Joumal ofUaming Disabilities, 39(6). 528-543.

Date Received: October 16, 2006Date Accepted: September 14, 2007

Action Editor: Todd Glover

Jeanne Wanzek, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in Special Education at Horida StateUniversity and the Florida Center for Reading Research. Her research interests includeeffective instruction, reading intervention, and response to instruction.

Sharon Vaughn, PhD, holds the H. E. Hartfelder/Southland Corporation Regents Chair inHuman Development in the Department of Special Education at the University of Texas.She was the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Leaming Disabilities and the coeditor ofLearning Disabilities Research & Practice. Her research interests address effectiveinstructional practices for students with ieaming problems and disabilities.

561

Documents

Research'Based Implications From Extensive Early … · Research'Based Implications From Extensive Early Reading Interventions ... This article provides a synthesis of re- ... McCardle