To provide timely and effective supports for students reading below grade level, schools require methods for quickly and accurately identifying those students in need. One method for identifying those students is through universal screening. Assessments such as oral reading fluency (ORF) and Maze reading comprehension are commonly used as screening assessments in middle grades. The current study examined ORF and Maze for evidence of bias across two subgroups known to be at increased risk for failure in reading: (a) students with learning disabilities and (b) students from low‐income households. Data from 4,215 students in the sixth (n = 1,126), seventh (n = 1,361), and eighth grades (n = 1,728) were analyzed. Results indicate no significant differences in predictive validity for students from low‐income households compared to students from middle and upper income households. For students with learning disabilities only 8th grade scores showed any evidence of bias compared to students without diagnosed disabilities. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.

No abstract

The current study examined the effect of a planning and goal-setting intervention in reducing latency to task engagement. This study used a multiple baseline design across participants for two seventh-grade and two eighth-grade students in a remedial reading class. The behavioral intervention was administered in small groups at the start of each class period. Latency for transitions was measured from the conclusion of teacher directions to the initiation of assigned academic tasks. Results showed the implementation of the intervention was closely associated with immediate decreases in latency to task engagement. The intervention reduced the mean latency to task engagement for all participants and reduced the variability over baseline. Visual analysis indicate a functional relation between the intervention and changes in latency. Implications for results and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Single‐case research designs (SCRDs) are rigorous methods used to investigate the effects of interventions on socially important outcomes. A hallmark of SCRDs is repeated measurement of observable behavior presented in time‐series graphs. The construction of time‐series graphs can inflate Type I or Type II errors made via visual analysis. In the current investigation, we included all SCRDs published in four flagship journals in the field of learning disabilities (Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Journal of Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal) over the last decade. A total of 47 studies including 315 graphs were included. Our findings suggest that ordinate scaling was appropriate across a majority of graphs; graphs, however, did not adhere to recommendations for x:y ratio or DPPXYR.

No abstract