The purpose of this review was to update previous reviews on factors related to students’ responsiveness to early literacy intervention. The 14 studies in this synthesis used experimental designs, provided small-group or one-on-one reading interventions, and analyzed factors related to responsiveness to those interventions. Participants were students who required intervention supports, with the majority identified as at-risk learners. Factors identified as consistently predictive included word identification, alphabetic principle, fluency, and phonemic awareness. Intellectual functioning and memory were inconsistently predictive. Factors identified as generally not predictive included vocabulary, language, and demographics. Findings of this review may provide guidance to researchers in identifying students who require more intensive intervention supports.

No abstract

With over 70% of fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade students in the United States scoring below proficiency levels in writing (NCES, 2009), teachers must provide early and effective writing intervention to accelerate students’ writing skills to meet grade-level standards. In this paper, we provide teachers with a theoretical framework to conceptualize the writing process, link evidenced-based writing interventions to each component of writing, and discuss how to create a writing instructional plan to individualize instruction. Then, we outline a data-based decision making process for intervention delivery. Our aim is to provide educators with steps to identify students’ writing needs, translate these needs into actionable teaching strategies, and accelerate writing progress for students who struggle to meet grade-level writing standards.

This study compared the reliability and validity of student scores from paper–pencil and e-based assessments using the “maze” and “silent reading fluency” (SRF) tasks. Forty students who were deaf and hard of hearing and reading between the second and fifth grade reading levels and their teachers (n = 21) participated. For maze, alternate form reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores and correct scores adjusted for guessing ranged from r = .61 to .84 (ps < .01); criterion-related validity coefficients ranged from r = .33 to .67 (most ps < .01). For SRF, reliability coefficients obtained from correct scores ranged from r = .50 to .75 (ps < .01); validity ranged from r = .25 to .72. Differences between student performance on paper–pencil and e-based conditions were generally non-significant for maze; significant differences between conditions for SRF favored the paper–pencil condition. Findings suggest that maze holds promise, with inconclusive results for SRF.

This review systematically identified and compared the technical adequacy (reliability and validity evidence) of reading curriculum-based measurement (CBM) tasks administered to students who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). This review included all available literature written in English. The nine studies identified used four CBM tasks: signed reading fluency, silent reading fluency, cloze (write in missing words given blank lines within a passage), and maze (circle the target word given multiple choice options within a passage). Data obtained from these measures were generally found to be internally consistent and stable with validity evidence varying across measures. Emerging evidence supports the utility of CBM for students who are DHH. Further empirical evidence is needed to continue to explore technical properties, identify if student scores are sensitive to growth over short periods of time, and examine whether CBM data can be used to inform instructional decision-making to improve student outcomes.