Abstract
Young students who are struggling with reading need a strong foundation in decoding skills. The need for strong decoding skills is particularly true for students facing multiple risk factors. A robust research base exists for interventions that improve decoding skills, but that research base extends minimally to students facing several risk factors. We used a multiple-probe across behaviors design to evaluate the impact of a multi-component reading intervention on the decoding skills of four first grade students. During the multi-component intervention, students received several opportunities to construct, deconstruct, write, and read target words from different word families. Results were indicative of a functional relation between the intervention and improvements in word reading. This effect was replicated across all four study participants. Participants reported the intervention had high acceptability. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the componential model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838.
Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318.
August, D., McCardle, P., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 43, 490–498. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-14-0088.1.
Baker, S. K., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014– 4012). Washington, DC.
Beck, I. L., & Beck, M. E. (2013). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys. New York: Guilford.
Blevins, W. (1998). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide. New York: Scholastic.
Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571.
Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Children’s usage rating profile (actual). Storrs: University of Connecticut.
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s tau and tau-u for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687.
Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2010). RTI applications: Academic and behavioral interventions (Vol. 1). New York: Guilford.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 82, 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019). Common core state standards initiative: Preparing students for college and career. Retrieved May 27, 2019 from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
Daly, E. J., Neugebauer, S., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2015). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: Guilford.
Dewey, E. N., Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (2014). DIBELS next national norms 2012–2013 (Technical Report No. 17). Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group.
Ehri, L. C. (2017). Orthographic mapping and literacy development revisited. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393.
Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). The structure of oral language and reading and their relation to comprehension in Kindergarten through Grade 2. Reading and Writing, 28, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9544-5.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700603.
García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.
Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 239–281). New York: Routledge.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Dewey, E. N., Wallin, J., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Lattimer, R. J. (2013). DIBELS Next technical manual. Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. http://dibels.org.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400204.
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189.
Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435921.
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kieffer, M. J., & Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Components and context: Exploring sources of reading difficulties for language minority learners and native English speakers in urban schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432683.
Klingbeil, D. A., Van Norman, E. R., & Nelson, P. M. (2017). Precision of curriculum-based measurement reading data: Considerations for multiple-baseline designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9282-7.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). What works clearinghouse: Single-case design technical documentation. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/wwc_scd.pdf.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636.
Ludwig, C., Guo, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855.
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Early indicators of later English reading comprehension outcomes among children from Spanish-speaking homes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 428–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1320402.
McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_05.
Moore, B. A., & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Considering the needs of English language learner populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466702.
Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483.
Skinner, C. H. (2013). Contextual validity: Knowing what works is necessary but not sufficient. The School Psychologist, 61, 14–21.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002.
Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 61, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1219301.
Stanley, C. T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31, 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9777-6.
Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.
Tarlow, K. R. (2016). Baseline corrected tau calculator. http://www.ktarlow.com/stats/tau.
Tarlow, K. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline corrected tau. Behavior Modification, 41, 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516676750.
Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961.
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Miciak, J., Cho, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2019). How initial word reading and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782618.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee IRB#17.091) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parker, D.C., Klingbeil, D.A., Hanrahan, A.R. et al. Effects of a Multi-component Decoding Intervention for At-risk First Graders. J Behav Educ 31, 326–349 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09400-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09400-7