This article reports a synthesis of intervention studies conducted between 1994 and 2004 with older students (Grades 6–12) with reading difficulties. Interventions addressing decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were included if they measured the effects on reading comprehension. Twenty-nine studies were located and synthesized. Thirteen studies met criteria for a meta-analysis, yielding an effect size (ES) of 0.89 for the weighted average of the difference in comprehension outcomes between treatment and comparison students. Word-level interventions were associated with ES = 0.34 in comprehension outcomes between treatment and comparison students. Implications for comprehension instruction for older struggling readers are described.

This meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4 through 12 published between 1980 and 2011. It updates Scammacca et al.’s analysis of studies published between 1980 and 2004. The combined corpus of 82 study-wise effect sizes was meta-analyzed to determine (a) the overall effectiveness of reading interventions studied over the past 30 years, (b) how the magnitude of the effect varies based on student, intervention, and research design characteristics, and (c) what differences in effectiveness exist between more recent interventions and older ones. The analysis yielded a mean effect of 0.49, considerably smaller than the 0.95 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effect for standardized measures was 0.21, also much smaller than the 0.42 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effects for reading comprehension measures were similarly diminished. Results indicated that the mean effects for the 1980–2004 and 2005–2011 groups of studies were different to a statistically significant degree. The decline in effect sizes over time is attributed at least in part to increased use of standardized measures, more rigorous and complex research designs, differences in participant characteristics, and improvements in the school’s “business-as-usual” instruction that often serves as the comparison condition in intervention studies.

We address the advantages and challenges of service delivery models based on student response to intervention (RTI) for preventing and remediating academic difficulties and as data sources for identification for special education services. The primary goal of RTI models is improved academic and behavioral outcomes for all students. We review evidence for the processes underlying RTI, including screening and progress monitoring assessments, evidence-based interventions, and schoolwide coordination of multitiered instruction. We also discuss the secondary goal of RTI, which is to provide data for identification of learning disabilities (LDs). Incorporating instructional response into identification represents a controversial shift away from discrepancies in cognitive skills that have traditionally been a primary basis for LD identification. RTI processes potentially integrate general and special education and suggest new directions for research and public policy related to LDs, but the scaling issues in schools are significant and more research is needed on the use of RTI data for identification.

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a content acquisition and reading comprehension treatment implemented by eighth‐grade social studies teachers. Using a within‐teacher design, the eighth‐grade teachers’ social studies classes were randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions. Teachers (n = 5) taught the same instructional content to both treatment and comparison classes, but the treatment classes used instructional practices focused on teaching essential words, text as a source for reading and discussion, and team‐based learning approaches. Students in the treatment conditions (n = 261) scored statistically higher than students in the comparison conditions (n = 158) on all three outcomes: content acquisition (ES = 0.17), content reading comprehension (ES = 0.29), and standardized reading comprehension (ES = 0.20). Findings are interpreted as demonstrating support for the treatment in improving both knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension within content area instruction.