To examine a response to treatment model as a means for identifying students with reading/learning disabilities, 45 second-grade students at risk for reading problems were provided daily supplemental reading instruction and assessed after 10 weeks to determine if they met a prior criteria for exit. Students who met criteria no longer received supplemental instruction. Those who did not were regrouped and supplemental instruction was continued for another 10 weeks. After 20 weeks of supplemental instruction, students who still had not met criteria were provided another 10 weeks of supplemental instruction. Students who never met criteria were classified as no exit. Pretest scores on fluency, passage comprehension, and rapid naming were the significant predictors of students who did not meet exit criteria.

Two studies of Grade 1 reading interventions for English-language (EL) learners at risk for reading problems were conducted. Two samples of EL students were randomly assigned to a treatment or untreated comparison group on the basis of their language of instruction for core reading (i.e., Spanish or English). In all, 91 students completed the English study (43 treatment and 48 comparison), and 80 students completed the Spanish study (35 treatment and 45 comparison). Treatment students received approximately 115 sessions of supplemental reading daily for 50 minutes in groups of 3 to 5. Findings from the English study revealed statistically significant differences in favor of treatment students on English measures of phonological awareness, word attack, word reading, and spelling (effect sizes of 0.35–0.42). Findings from the Spanish study revealed significant differences in favor of treatment students on Spanish measures of phonological awareness, letter-sound and letter-word identification, verbal analogies, word reading fluency, and spelling (effect sizes of 0.33–0.81).

The effects of three grouping formats—1:1 (one teacher with 1 student), 1:3 (one teacher with 3 students), and 1:10 (one teacher with 10 students)—on the reading outcomes of second-grade struggling readers was studied. Students in all groups were given the same supplemental reading intervention for the same number of sessions, thus holding intervention type and intensity constant and varying group size. Students made significant gains in phoneme segmentation, fluency, and comprehension following the intervention, and these gains were maintained at follow-up (4—5 weeks after intervention). Based on effect sizes, both 1:1 and 1:3 were highly effective intervention group sizes for supplemental reading instruction. Although the 1:1 grouping format yielded significantly higher scores for phoneme segmentation, fluency, and comprehension than the 1:10, it was not superior to the 1:3 on any outcome measure.

The effectiveness of an explicit, systematic reading intervention for first-grade students whose home language was Spanish and who were at risk for reading difficulties was examined. Participants were 69 students in 20 classrooms in 7 schools from 3 districts who initially did not pass the screening in Spanish and were randomly assigned within schools to a treatment or comparison group; after 7 months, 64 students remained in the study. The intervention matched the language of instruction of their core reading program (Spanish). Treatment groups of 3 to 5 students met daily for 50 min and were provided systematic and explicit instruction in oral language and reading by trained bilingual intervention teachers. Comparison students received the school's standard intervention for struggling readers. Observations during core reading instruction provided information about the reading instruction and language use of the teachers. There were no differences between the treatment and comparison groups in either Spanish or English on any measures at pretest, but there were significant posttest differences in favor of the treatment group for the following outcomes in Spanish: Letter-Sound Identification (d = 0.72), Phonological Awareness composite (d = 0.73), Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised Oral Language composite (d = 0.35), Word Attack (d = 0.85), Passage Comprehension (d = 0.55), and two measures of reading fluency (d = 0.58-0.75).

No abstract