Supplemental reading interventions implemented by paraprofessionals: A meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian T. Jones ◽  
William P. Erchul ◽  
Cathleen A. Geraghty
Keyword(s):  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Supplemental Reading

scholarly journals The Relationship Between Study Quality and the Effects of Supplemental Reading Interventions: A Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-366
Author(s):  
Christy R. Austin ◽  
Jeanne Wanzek ◽  
Nancy K. Scammacca ◽  
Sharon Vaughn ◽  
Samantha A. Gesel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reading Skills ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Treatment ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Type I ◽  
Supplemental Reading ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Standardized Measures ◽  
Treatment Type

Empirical studies investigating supplemental reading interventions for students with or at risk for reading disabilities in the early elementary grades have demonstrated a range of effect sizes. Identifying the findings from high-quality research can provide greater certainty of findings related to the effectiveness of supplemental reading interventions. This meta-analysis investigated how four variables of study quality (study design, statistical treatment, Type I error, and fidelity of implementation) were related to effect sizes from standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language and comprehension. The results from 88 studies indicated that year of publication was a significant predictor of effect sizes for both standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language and comprehension, with more recent studies demonstrating smaller effect sizes. Results also demonstrated that with the exception of research design predicting effect sizes on foundational reading skills measures, study quality was not related to the effects of supplemental reading interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

What Does Science Say About Orton-Gillingham Interventions? An Explanation and Commentary on the Stevens et al. (2021) Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Solari ◽  
Yaacov Petscher ◽  
Colby Hall
Keyword(s):  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Difficulties ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Exceptional Children ◽  
Reading Research ◽  
Education Science ◽  
Clear Description

A recent meta-analysis published in Exceptional Children (Stevens et al., 2021) looked at the effects of Orton-Gillingham (OG) reading interventions on reading outcomes for students who have word reading difficulties. The results of the study have led to questions and lively conversation among practitioners and reading researchers. One of the things that is important about science is that it is constantly evolving: this is true in education science as much as it is in the health sciences. Because this journal is committed to translating empirical findings from reading research in order to make education science accessible to practitioners, the intent of this commentary is to provide a clear description of the findings reported in this recent meta-analysis, addressing the degree to which they align with those reported in similar reviews of OG interventions. We discuss the degree to which the findings represent an evolution of reading science and their implications for instructional practice, policy, and future research.

Are Reading Interventions for English Language Learners Effective? A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 220-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caralyn Ludwig ◽  
Kan Guo ◽  
George K. Georgiou
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Reading Fluency ◽  
English Language ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Word Reading ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Accuracy ◽  
Positive Effects

Despite concerted efforts to improve the reading skills of English language learners (ELLs), it remains unclear if the interventions they have been receiving produce any positive results. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine how effective reading interventions are in improving ELLs’ reading skills and what factors may influence their effectiveness. Twenty-six studies with reported outcomes for pretest and posttest were selected, and four moderators (group size, intensity of intervention, students’ risk status, and type of intervention) were coded. The results of random-effects analyses showed that the reading interventions had a large effect on ELLs’ reading accuracy ( d = 1.221) and reading fluency ( d = 0.802) and a moderate effect on reading comprehension ( d = 0.499). In addition, for real-word reading accuracy, intervention groups composed of more than five students were less effective than groups composed of two to five students, and longer intervention sessions were less effective than shorter ones. Overall, our findings suggest that reading interventions have positive effects on ELLs’ reading skills, and they should not be delayed until these students have reached a certain level of oral English proficiency.

A Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Reading Interventions Using Social Studies Content for Students With Learning Disabilities

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Swanson ◽  
Angela Hairrell ◽  
Shawn Kent ◽  
Stephen Ciullo ◽  
Jeanne A. Wanzek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Social Studies ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities

scholarly journals Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students with or at Risk for Word-level Reading Disabilities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Stevens ◽  
Christy Austin ◽  
Clint Moore ◽  
Nancy K. Scammacca ◽  
Alexis N. Boucher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Reading Disabilities ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reading Outcomes ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Current State ◽  
Rigorous Research

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grass-roots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at-risk for world-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006) and What Works Clearinghouse reports (WWC, 2010) yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; ES = 0.22, p = .40); though the mean effect size was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .59) for students with or at-risk for WLRD. More high quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions for Students in the Primary Grades

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-427
Author(s):  
Russell Gersten ◽  
Kelly Haymond ◽  
Rebecca Newman-Gonchar ◽  
Joseph Dimino ◽  
Madhavi Jayanthi
Keyword(s):  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Grades ◽  
The Impact

Understanding the Dynamics of Dosage Response: A Nonlinear Meta-Analysis of Recent Reading Interventions

2021 ◽  
pp. 003465432110514
Author(s):  
Garrett J. Roberts ◽  
Denis G. Dumas ◽  
Daniel McNeish ◽  
Brooke Coté
Keyword(s):  
Reading Instruction ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Maximum Effect ◽  
Optimal Dosage ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Parabolic Shape ◽  
Dosage Response Curve

Researchers have noted a nonlinear association between reading instruction dosage (i.e., hours of instruction) and reading outcomes for Grade K–3 students with reading difficulties (K–3 SWRD). In this article, we propose a nonlinear meta-analysis as a method to identify both the maximum effect size and optimal dosage of reading interventions for K–3 SWRD using 26 peer-reviewed studies including 186 effect sizes. Results suggested the effect sizes followed a concave parabolic shape, such that increasing dosage improved intervention effects until 39.92 hours of instruction (dmax = 0.77), after which the intervention effects declined. Moderator analyses found that maximum intervention effects on fluency outcomes were significantly larger (dmax = 1.34) than the overall maximum effect size. Also, when students received 1:1 instruction, the dosage response curve displayed a different functional form than the concave parabolic shape, showing the effect increased indefinitely after approximately 16.8 hours of instruction. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document