Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates: Empirically validating a repeated readings intervention

Abstract

The current study was designed to demonstrate how researchers could use a direct measure of functional reading skills (e.g., rates of silent reading comprehension) to empirically validate the effectiveness of a repeated readings intervention. A multi-element design was used to compare the effects of the treatment with a control condition across three secondary students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities in reading. Results showed that repeated readings increased factual comprehension levels and factual reading comprehension rates. No differences were found across conditions on inferential comprehension levels or rates. Discussion focuses on empirically validating reading interventions using rates of silent reading comprehension and theoretical implications related to enhancing inferential and literal comprehension and fluency.

A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers

“…Descriptions of how fidelity of treatment is assessed improve our confidence that the intervention was implemented with ''accuracy and consistency'' (Gresham, MacMillan, BeebeFrankenberger, & Bocian, 2000, p. 198). Fourteen studies in the synthesis, despite differences in research design, included evidence of fidelity of treatment (Allinder et al, 2001;Conte & Humprheys, 1989;Daly & Martens, 1994;Freeland, Skinner, Jackson, McDaniel, & Smith, 2000;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999;Rose & Beattie, 1986;Rose & Sherry, 1984;Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002;Shapiro & McCurdy, 1989;Skinner, Cooper, & Cole, 1997;Skinner & Shapiro, 1989;Steventon & Frederick, 2003;Strong, Wehby, Falk, & Lane, 2004;Valleley & Shriver, 2003).…”

“…Three studies implemented multiple element designs (Daly & Martens, 1994;Freeland et al, 2000;Skinner et al, 1997). Three studies implemented an alternating treatment design (Rose & Beattie, 1986;Rose & Sherry, 1984;Skinner & Shapiro, 1989) and 5 studies implemented a multiple baseline design (Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002;Shapiro & McCurdy, 1989;Steventon & Frederick, 2003;Strong et al, 2004;Valleley & Shriver, 2003).…”

“…Repeated reading with a model: Twelve studies examined the effects of repeated reading with some type of model or previewing procedure (Conte & Humphreys, 1989;Daly & Martens, 1994;Freeland et al, 2000;Fuchs et al, 1999;Mercer et al, 2000;Rose & Beattie, 1986;Rose & Sherry, 1984;Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002;Shapiro & McCurdy, 1989;Skinner et al, 1997;Skinner & Shapiro, 1989;Strong et al, 2004). Findings are summarized by type of model (e.g., audiotape).…”

“…Seven studies utilized an adult or peer as a model of good reading before or during reading while students engaged in repeated reading of isolated phonics elements, words, and/or passages (Freeland et al, 2000;Fuchs et al, 1999;Mercer et al, 2000;Rose & Sherry, 1984;Scott & Shearer-Lingo, 2002;Skinner et al, 1997;Strong et al, 2004). The adult model of good reading used in these studies was the experimenter, the students' teacher or some other instructor.…”

“…The adult model of good reading used in these studies was the experimenter, the students' teacher or some other instructor. Studies conducted by Freeland et al (2000), Mercer et al (2000), Scott and Shearer-Lingo (2002) and Strong et al (2004) used an adult reader to provide corrective feedback during or prior to reading. The study by Fuchs et al (1999) used a peer to provide corrective feedback if a student was stuck on a word during reading.…”