Effects of Three Interventions on the Reading Skills of Children With Reading Disabilities in Grade 2

Abstract

In a longitudinal intervention study, the effects of three intervention strategies on the reading skills of children with reading disabilities in Grade 2 were analyzed. The interventions consisted of computerized training programs: One bottom-up intervention aimed at improving word decoding skills and phonological abilities, the second intervention focused on top-down processing on the word and sentence levels, and the third was a combination of these two training programs (n = 25 in each group). In addition, there were two comparison groups, 25 children with reading disabilities who received ordinary special instruction and 30 age-matched typical readers. All reading disabled participants completed 25 training sessions with special education teachers. All groups improved their reading skills. The group who received combined training showed higher improvements than the ordinary special instruction group and the typical readers. Different cognitive variables were related to treatment gains for different groups. Thus, a treatment combining bottom-up and top-down aspects of reading was the most effective in general, but individual differences among children need to be considered.

How Simple is the Simple View of Reading?

“…The two factors in the SVR -decoding and language comprehension -explained somewhat less of the variance in reading ability in children with reading difficulties than in children with typical reading ability, suggesting that a more complex theory may be needed to explain reading for children with reading difficulties than the original SVR proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986). This is also in line with findings that children with more general reading difficulties benefit from broad interventions combining several different bottom-up processes, as well as top-down processes (Gustafson et al, 2011).…”

“…As it was not possible to complete all test items there was no maximum score -the score was the number of correct answers minus the number of errors. In a previous study, testretest correlation between two test-sessions in grade 2 was r ¼ .91 (Gustafson et al, 2011).…”

“…Jacobson (1993) reported test-retest correlations with an interval of 12 months between measurements of r ¼ .80-.90 in different groups of children in grades 1-6 (Jacobson, 1993). In a recent study by Gustafson, Fälth, Svensson, Tjus and Heimann (2011) the test-retest correlation between two test sessions in grade 2 was r ¼ .88.…”

Signs for Developing Reading : Sign Language and Reading Development in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

“…This learning environment supports the child's access to long-term representations, shortterm maintenance and manipulation, sustained attention and engagement in working with the material, and is thus likely to facilitate learning (Mayer, 2008). In fact, Omega-is and its predecessors were developed with difficult learning situations in mind, and the program and its forerunners have shown positive effects on both word reading and reading comprehension in typically developing as well as children with, e.g., dyslexia, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (e.g., Fälth, Gustafson, Tjus, Heimann, & Svensson, 2013;Gustafson, Fälth, Svensson, Tjus, & Heimann, 2011;Heimann, Nelson, Gillberg, & Karnevik, 1993;Heimann, Nelson, Tjus, & Gillberg, 1995;Helland, Tjus, Hovden, Ofte, & Heimann, 2011;Tjus, Heimann, & Nelson, 1998. Early versions of the program also indicated positive effects on reading development in deaf children (Prinz, Nelson, & Stedt, 1982;Prinz & Nelson, 1985).…”

Reading Developmental Trends in Early Years: The Influence of Word Identification Skills and Target Langauge Oral Ability to Comprehension

“…In other words, word identification is likely to be a cause and not a consequence of reading comprehension difficulties. Studies have established that children who are experiencing reading difficulties have their core deficits in phonological skills (Gustafson, Falth, Svensson, Tjus, & Heimann, 2011;Fuchs et al, 2012;McNamara et al 2011, SasKatchewan, 2004. Fuchs et al (2012), for instance, found that phonological processing and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) were statistically significant predictors; they are important for explaining reading comprehension as well as reading at the word level.…”