Problem Analysis at Tier 2: Using Data to Find the Category of the Problem

Comparison of Reading Growth Among Students With Severe Reading Deficits Who Received Intervention to Typically Achieving Students and Students Receiving Special Education

“…The data were consistent with previous research that found positive effects for small-group interventions (Burns et al, 2016; Gersten et al, 2009; Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014). Moreover, the interventions were targeted to student needs, which focused on phonics or fluency and previous research also found that it was effective to target those areas of reading deficit among students who struggle with the code-based aspects of reading (Piasta & Wagner, 2010; Scammacca et al, 2007; Vaughn et al, 2006).…”

“…Future research is needed to identify which aspects of an intervention are most important, but until that research is conducted, practitioners should implement all aspects of an effective targeted intervention package. Moreover, the current data, in combination with previous research (Burns et al, 2016; Hall & Burns, 2018), support targeting the tier 2 intervention to student need.…”

“…Moreover, the interventions were targeted to student needs, which focused on phonics or fluency and previous research also found that it was effective to target those areas of reading deficit among students who struggle with the code-based aspects of reading (Piasta & Wagner, 2010; Scammacca et al, 2007; Vaughn et al, 2006). Burns et al (2016) study directly compared the effects of targeting an intervention to a more comprehensive intervention that addressed phonics, fluency, and comprehension and found the former to be more effective. This study is consistent with the Burns et al study regarding the effectiveness of targeted reading interventions but did not directly compare targeted versus comprehensive interventions.…”

“…The dependent variable was the growth score for each student that was computed by calculating the slope of the seasonal benchmark scores across the fall, winter, and spring assessments. Slope was computed with ordinary least squares (OLS) because OLS is consistent with previous slope research (e.g., Burns et al, 2016; Deno et al, 2001). The OLS growth score equaled the average weekly increase in WRCM which functioned as an indicator of rate of improvement.…”

“…Tiered interventions for reading were more effective if they directly targeted specific student reading needs in phonemic awareness (Ehri et al, 2007), phonics (Vaughn et al, 2006), fluency (Burns et al, 2016), and comprehension (Scammacca et al, 2007) than if they were more comprehensive in nature. Meta-analytic research supported the delivery of targeted tier 2 interventions (Hall & Burns, 2018; Piasta & Wagner, 2010), and students who participated in targeted tier 2 interventions demonstrated greater growth (1.33 and 1.23 weekly WRCM [words read correctly per minute] growth for second and third grades, respectively) over the course of the school year than did students participating only in tier 1 reading instruction (1.25 and 1.03 weekly WRCM growth for second and third grades, respectively; Burns et al, 2016). However, much of the research regarding RtI effects focused on students with moderate reading difficulties and did not examine students with disabilities or severe reading deficits.…”