reducing risk through a supplementary reading intervention ... · reducing risk through a...

Reducing Risk through a Supplementary ReadingIntervention: A Case Study of First- and

Second-Grade Urban Students

Morris R. Council, IIIUniversity of West Georgia

Gwendolyn CartledgeThe Ohio State University

DeLayna GreenColumbus City Schools

Mariah BarberParadise Valley Unified School District

Ralph Gardner, IIIThe Ohio State University

ABSTRACT: This descriptive study examined whether a computer-based, repeated readingintervention (i.e., Reading Relevant and Culturally Engaging Stories) is associated with improvedreading and social behavior for three primary-aged urban black girls who each showed bothacademic and behavioral risk. The Reading Relevant and Culturally Engaging Stories interventionutilized culturally relevant reading passages for repeated readings delivered through computersoftware to increase the reading fluency of the young learners. Single-subject data collectionprocedures (AB designs) were used to measure student performance in reading and behaviorduring the intervention. Reading and behavioral outcomes improved following implementation ofthe intervention for all three participants. The benefits of systematic, intensive, and culturallyrelevant intervention to reduce risk in beginning learners are discussed.

▪ Reading is the most essential skill for schoolsuccess. Poverty, racial minority status, limitedEnglish proficiency, and inadequate schoolingare the most salient factors associated with read-ing/special education risk (National Center forEducational Statistics [NCES], 2007). Further-more, struggling readers often present chronicproblem behavior, increasing their risk for a spe-cial education label (e.g., behavior disorders;Kaufman & Landrum, 2012). Children withbehavior disorders traditionally have been sub-jected to a curriculum focused on behavior con-trol (Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch, 1990) andpunishment (Center for Effective Collaborationand Practice [CECP], 2000), with considerablyless attention to academics. More recently, how-ever, the associative nature of combined behav-ior and academic deficits for children with

behavior disorders (Bierman et al., 2013) hasincreased attention to this dual relationship andrelated interventions.

Behavior Problems and Reading

The research and theoretical literature in thearea of behavior disorders includes extensive dis-cussions on the co-existence of problems withboth reading and behavior. The common specu-lation that providing interventions for eitheracademic or social behaviorsmight have a recip-rocal, moderating effect on the correspondingbehavior (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011;Kempe, Gustafson, & Samuelsson, 2011; Pierce,Wechsler-Zimring, Noam, Wolf, & Katzir, 2013;Pimperton&Nation, 2014) has limited empiricalsupport (Algozzine et al., 2011). There is,

Behavioral Disorders, 41 (4), 241–257 August 2016 / 241

however, research evidence that intensive inter-ventions that require high levels of academicresponding not only affect academic gains butcan also reduce disruptive behavior duringinstruction (e.g., Hagan-Burke, Gilmour, Gerow,& Crowder, 2015; Lane, Little, Redding-Rhodes,Phillips, & Welsh, 2007; Lo & Cartledge, 2004;Sutherland & Snyder, 2007). Although lackingevidence of lasting behavior outcomes, effectiveacademic interventions that mitigate disruptivebehaviors during instruction are extremely bene-ficial for students with behavior disorders.

Urban Minority Learners

Students who present reading and behaviorproblems are perhaps the most vulnerableyoungsters in our schools and this risk is furtheraggravated among minority and low-incomestudents. The professional literature repeatedlydocuments the disproportionate placement ofAfrican American students in programs forbehavior disorders (Cartledge & Dukes, 2009).We know that students with behavior disordersnot only experience more school failurethan their peers with or without disabilities(Bowman-Perrott et al., 2011), but they alsohave poorer postschool outcomes (Zigmond,2006). Bowman-Perrott et al. (2011), for exam-ple, examined national longitudinal data fromthe Special Education Elementary LongitudinalStudy and found that compared to studentswith other disabilities (e.g., attention deficithyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities) stu-dents with behavior disorders were most likelyto be excluded from school and excluded mul-tiple times. They also found that the two stron-gest predictors of exclusions were being maleand being African American. Other risk factorsincluded grade retention and self-containedsecondary placement, which are predictive ofearly school leaving and subsequent diagnosisof conduct disorder (Bierman et al., 2013).

The poor school outcomes for students withbehavior disorders (CECP, 2000) and the dispro-portionate enrollment of black students in pro-grams for behavior disorders point to theurgency of highly effective interventions wherechildren with disabilities experience the greatestrisk. The problems are compounded in urbanschools where educators’ teaching experience,qualifications, andpreparationmaybe significantissues (e.g., Kozleski, Sobel, & Taylor, 2003). Fur-thermore, in urban schools class sizes are oftenlarge, teachers are providedwith fewer resources,and students present greater instructional needs

than their peers in more affluent districts (Finch,2012; Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Children withsignificant reading and behavioral needs requiremore, not less, instruction, which often does notoccur (CECP, 2000). Instruction needs to be evi-dence based, teacher friendly, and minimizeproblem behaviors. Although this is the expecta-tion for all schools, the need is greater in urbanschools and the likelihood is less because ofthe higher incidence of students with risk charac-teristics (NCES, 2007), the issue of teacher quali-fications (Kozleski et al., 2003), and limitedresources (Finch, 2012; Orosco & Klingner,2010). Thus, supplementary interventions thatactively engage the learner without placingexcessive demands on the classroom teacherare critical in urban, low-income classrooms.

Theoretical Framework

The overall focus of this intervention is toreduce reading failure (and, hence, the needfor special education) for populations withhigh risk (e.g., urban racially and linguisticallydiverse learners). The proposed intervention isbased on the premise that many young childrenvulnerable for reading risk and identificationfor special education require explicit instruc-tion on oral reading fluency (ORF) that maybe delivered efficiently and effectively throughexisting technology. Another key overarchingprinciple is that the intervention may be mademore attractive, and thus more effective, byappealing to particular learning attributes ofthe targeted learners. This specialized appealis referred to as culturally relevant (CR) instruc-tion. A final point is that within urban settings,overburdened with too many needs and toofew resources, intervention delivery needs tobe of minimum effort and maximum effect.Thus, this intervention offers three main fea-tures: (a) early ORF instruction taught with (b)CR reading passages, which are deliveredthrough (c) computer software.

Most authorities agree fluency is a necessarycomponent of reading proficiency (Hudson,Lane, & Pullen, 2005; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) andcorrelates strongly with reading comprehension(Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001), but read-ing programs often neglect to include explicitinstruction in fluency (Kame’euni & Simmons,2001). There is increasing evidence that ORFbegins as early as kindergarten or first gradeand is predictive of subsequent reading profi-ciency (Baker et al., 2008). Additionally, ORFinstruction should begin at the acquisition stage

242 / August 2016 Behavioral Disorders, 41 (4), 241–257

of reading (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001), be prac-ticed in connected text (Coyne, Kame’euni,Simmons, & Harn, 2004; Hapstak & Tracey,2007; Lane et al., 2007), and be providedthrough systematic instruction. Gibson, Cart‐ledge, Keyes, and Yawn (2014) found thatrepeated readings delivered through computersoftware was an effective approach for increas-ing the ORF of first-grade urban studentsevidencing reading/special education risk.

Many advocates have pushed for the useof more CR teaching material, reporting someevidence of improved interest and perfor-mance with those materials (e.g., Bishop,2007; Debnam, Pas, Bottiani, Cash, & Brad-shaw, 2015). Self-identity is key for attractionto and sustained engagement in literacy activi-ties (Cartledge, Keesey, Bennett, Ramnath, &Council, 2016) with indications that culturallydiverse students respond more positively to lit-erature that reflects their background (Ebe,2010). Additionally, this intervention isintended to incorporate features Steele (2010)espoused to minimize threat and to maximizeidentity safety. We assume that reading materi-als that reflect the learner’s background andassurance that educators will help the learnerto succeed will be less threatening. For exam-ple, we gave learners researcher-developedreading passages with familiar CR contentand then told them that we knew the readinggoal was high but we knew they could do itand we would help them practice until thegoal was reached.

Computers have been used successfully todeliver academic subjects such as math andreading (Fuchs et al., 2006; Leonard, Davis, &Sidler, 2005), including to students with dis-abilities (Kim et al., 2006). Computer softwareprograms can alleviate some of the teacherresource problems encountered within innercity schools. Another potential benefit of com-puter-based teaching is that the instructioncan be delivered in a consistent, pedagogicallyprescribed manner, fairly free of instructionalerror (Black, Tepperman, & Narayanan, 2011).Furthermore, computer programs are found tobe especially beneficial for young, low-incomeurban children, elevating both academic andsocial behaviors (Laffey, Espinosa, Moore, &Lodree, 2003). Gibson et al. (2014) found thatfirst-grade urban students quickly acquired thetechnical skills needed to master the sequencesfor the computer software. Additional researchis needed to determine the viability of such

interventions with young urban children whoshow reading/behavior risk.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examinewhether a computer-delivered reading fluencyintervention was associated with improvedreading and social behavior for young childrenwho showed reading/special education risk.These data are presented as a case study ofthree urban black girls (two first graders, onesecond grader) who evidenced risk and initiallyresisted the supplementary instruction, statingthat they couldn’t read, referred to themselvesas failures, and refused or resisted readingactivities in their class. The basic interventioninvolved a computer-delivered reading fluencyintervention consisting of repeated readings ofCR passages. Specifically, we examined wheth-er (a) the intervention was associated with par-ticipants making gains in their reading fluencyand comprehension, (b) any observed gainstransferred to generalization reading passages,and (c) corresponding improvements wereobserved in the girls’ behavior and reading atti-tudes during instruction.

Method

Participants and Settings

This study is part of a larger project (Cart‐ledge, Keesey, Bennett, Gallant, & Ramnath,2015; Cartledge et al., 2016) involving a fluen-cy reading intervention (Reading Relevant andCulturally Engaging Stories [Reading Races orRR]), consisting of repeated reading instructionand CR passages delivered through computersoftware. Participants were recruited from threeurban elementary schools in a public schoolsystem located in a large Midwestern metropol-itan area. One participant was selected fromeach of the participating schools for this casestudy. Classroom teachers agreed to participatein the project and referred participants whowere at high risk for reading failure, basedboth on classroom performance and the dis-trict-wide reading assessment. One student,Skylar, was referred also because of classroombehavior problems of tantrums and defiance.By midyear, prior to intervention, Skylar hadover 20 out-of-school suspensions. The othertwo students had milder behavioral problemssuch as refusing to read (Hazel) and excessiveactivity (Grace), as reported by their teachers.


Despite these concerns, none of the girls wereidentified for special education at the time ofthe study.

Hazel (names of all schools and students arepseudonyms) was a first grader who was 6 yearsand 11 months old when she was identified forthe study. Hazel’s teacher recommended herfor the study based on her low scores on the dis-trict-wide reading assessment results. Hazel waseasily distracted from academic tasks and oftenmade negative comments about her abilities.Her lack of confidence seemed to serve as a cat-alyst for noncompliance when asked to com-plete literacy tasks. Hazel attended DrexelElementary School where 85.2% of studentswere black/Non-Hispanic, 7.0% white/Non-Hispanic, 5.3% multiracial, and 81.8% eco-nomically disadvantaged. Classroom instructionfor Hazel included district-wide whole groupinstruction using a blend of phonics-based andwhole language instruction. Her interventiontook place in the school’s community room(i.e., administrative office with desk and com-puter). Each session included one to tworesearchers. There were three to four sessions aweek with each session lasting 20–30 min.Hazel was in intervention for 13 weeks.

Grace was a first grader who attendedGraeter Elementary School, a charter school.She was 6 years, 5 months old and appearedslightly smaller than most of her first-gradepeers. Over 75% of the students enrolled ather school were classified as English languagelearners, and 100% classified as economicallydisadvantaged. Approximately 95% of the chil-dren in the school were of Somali background,and that language was spoken in Grace’shome. The remaining students were AfricanAmerican native English speakers. ThoughGrace was identified as an English languagelearner, her English Proficiency score on theOhio Test of English Language Assessment(OTELA, 2015) indicated she was approachingproficiency in English for her age. Like Hazel,baseline instruction for Grace was the district’swhole group approach using a blend of pho-nics-based and whole language instruction.The school did not provide pullout reading inter-vention for struggling students. Furthermore,school personnel did not utilize formativeassessments to track students’ progress in read-ing. Grace’s teacher recommended her for thestudy due to poor reading skills. Grace wasextremely active and social. During interventionshe would easily get distracted and often deviat-ed from the prescribed instructions. The study

took place in the school’s library and resourceroom to minimize distractions. Each sessionincluded one to two researchers. There wereone to four sessions a week for a total of 34 ses-sions, with each session lasting 20–30 min.Grace was in intervention for 13 weeks.

Finally, Skylar, who was 7 years, 8 monthswhen she was identified for the study, was a sec-ond grader at Hope Elementary School. Skylar’steacher identified her as a student with extremeproblem behavior (e.g., tantrums) and limitedreading ability. Skylar was frequently sent tothe principal’s office for discipline and had ahistory of out-of-school suspensions. The HopeElementary student population was 90.9% blackand 89.6% economically disadvantaged. Class-room reading instruction included whole groupactivities that emphasized comprehension andsight word vocabulary. The study was con-ducted in a second-grade classroom and teach‐ers’ lounge. Each session included one to tworesearchers. There were one to four sessions aweek for a total of 12 sessions, with each sessionlasting 20–30 min. Skylar was in intervention for4 weeks.

The researchers administered the DynamicIndicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills NextEdition (DIBELS Next; Good & Kaminski,2011) beginning/middle-of-the-year bench-mark assessment to each participant. Hazeland Grace were assessed using the first-gradeDIBELS Next and Skylar was assessed with thesecond-grade DIBELS Next. These assessmentswere used as academic screening measures todetermine the participants’ appropriateness forthe intervention. All three participants demon-strated grade level decoding skills but poorreading fluency (i.e., well below benchmark)and engaged in problem behaviors. See Table 1for demographic information on participants.

Materials and Outcome Measures

Pre-Intervention Assessment Instruments

Screening measures consisted of subtestsfrom the DIBELS Next and, additionally, theOTELA for English Learners was analyzed forGrace.

DIBELS Next. Screening measures for theDIBELS Next consisted of two subtests: Non-sense Word Fluency (NWF), which assesseddecoding skills, and DIBELS Oral Reading Flu-ency (DORF), which assessed reading fluency.Participants’ ORF scores provided informationabout their prebaseline reading fluency. Dewey,Powell-Smith, Good, and Kaminski (2015)


reported that the alternate-form reliability ofthe first-grade NWF was .85 for a single testand .94 for the three-test form; and .91 and .96for the single- and three-test forms, respectively,for first-grade DORF. Second-grade DORF reli-ability was .93 for single test and .97 for triad.The DIBELS Next does not provide a midyearNWF second-grade assessment. We followedadministration procedures prescribed by theDIBELS Next authors (Good et al., 2013).

OTELA. Teachers at Graeter Elementaryadministered the OTELA to determine languageproficiency of English learners. Test resultswere recorded in Levels 1 to 5, 1 being pre-functional and 5 being full English proficiency.The OTELA used “estimated form reliabilitybased on the Spearman Brown prophecy for-mula for the OTELA as well as the coefficientalpha reliability estimates from the first opera-tional administration of the English LanguageDevelopment Assessment [ELDA]” (Moore,2008, p. 17). OTELA (2010) reported reliabilitycoefficients for the OTELA for first and secondgraders as: listening, .94; speaking, .95; read-ing, .96; and writing, .94.

CR Passages

This study is a continuation of a larger proj-ect where the research team created novel CRpassages utilizing questionnaires and interviewsof students, parents, and teachers in the schools.The CR passages were designed to reflect theinterests and background of the target popula-tion (i.e., first- and second-grade urban learners).The team wrote a total of 30 first-grade and 30second-grade passages that were validated andequated with reading, cultural, and psychomet-ric authorities. See Cartledge et al. (2015) for

additional details on the creation and validationof the CR passages.

CR Maze Passages

Maze comprehension tests are curriculum-based measures commonly used with primary-aged learners to monitor reading comprehen-sion (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The CR mazepassages are identical to the CR reading pas-sages, except with approximately every sixth orseventh word replaced with three choices forthe missing word. Learners select the appropri-ate word from the word choices to demonstratereading comprehension. Maze passages werecreated to correspond to each set of CR pas-sages to assess participants’ comprehension ofthe CR passages. See Cartledge et al. (2015)for additional details on the creation and vali-dation of the maze passages.

Generalization Passages

The generalization passages were takenfrom AIMSweb (n.d.). AIMSweb is a curricu-lum-based measurement system for screeningand progress monitoring of basic academic(i.e., reading, language arts, math) and socialskills. We viewed these passages as non-CRbecause the narratives are not specific to urbansettings or diverse learners, even though thepassages do contain content of general interestto this grade level. Similar to the DIBELS assess-ments, Grace and Hazel received AIMSwebmaterials designed for first graders and Skylarreceived second-grade materials. Generaliza-tion passages were administered during base-line and every time a participant successfullycompleted three to five sessions using CR pas-sages (i.e., achieved her fluency goal).

TABLE 1Participant Screening Information

Name Agea Race Grade Level

DIBELS Next Scores

Phoneme SegmentationRaw Score (Risk Level)

Oral Reading FluencyRaw Score (Risk Level)

Hazel 6–11 AA 1st 46*(At or above benchmark)

7*(Well below benchmark)

Grace 6–5 S 1st 17**(At or above benchmark)

6**(Well below benchmark)

Skylar 7–8 AA 2nd N/A 27**(Well below benchmark)

Note. Risk level according to DIBELS Next benchmark goals. AA5 African American, S5 Somali, N/A5 not applicable (no Mid-dle of the Year subtest for second grade Phoneme Segmentation).aAge is reported in years–months at the time DIBELS Next Beginning of the Year* or Middle of the Year** subtests wereadministered.


Reading RACES

Reading RACES (RR) is a computer-assistedinstruction (CAI) application designed to deliv-er a repeated reading intervention to first andsecond graders. A Toshiba laptop computerwith specialized repeated reading softwareloaded was used to deliver the intervention.The program allowed students to listen to ahuman voice model read a passage and thenfor the student to read with the model. The pro-gram also had the capability to “listen” (i.e.,record students’ repeated readings session) tostudents as they read independently. Followingstudent readings, the program calculated thetotal words read on 1-min timings based onvoice recognition during these independentreadings. The researcher recorded incorrectwords and the total words read to verify thecomputer calculations. Students then verifiedthe last word that they actually read by clickingon the word. A headset with a noise-cancellingmicrophone was used so that participantscould listen to the stories with limited distrac-tions and the computer could create an audiorecord of the students’ oral reading. Using thisinformation, the computer generated a correctwords per minute (CWPM) score and displayedit to the student. During intervention, while theparticipant was reading practice passages, theCAI provided assistance with unknown words(i.e., read the word) when a student clickedon the unknown word or when there was a3-s pause in their reading.

Reinforcers

Reinforcers (i.e., incentives) consisted ofstickers and were used during the pretest,baseline, and intervention phases. Duringintervention (as discussed later) Hazel wasprovided access to additional reinforcers inthe form of positive notes to take home andbrief access to video games. Stickers were pro-vided to the participants upon completion ofeach session.

Procedures

Baseline

Baseline consisted of alternating cold readson three AIMSweb passages (i.e., the non-CRpassages used for generalization) and three CRpassages delivered on the computer. Mazecomprehension tests were assessed on thecomputer for all cold reads. A cold read was a

novel (i.e., not previously seen/read) passagethat the participant attempted to read indepen-dently. The participants listened to and com-plied with the instructions delivered throughthe computer. For all passages, data were col-lected on participants’ errors, CWPM, andnumber of items scored correct and incorrecton the maze comprehension passage.

Intervention

The intervention used in this study, RR, wasthe researcher-designed repeated reading appli-cation with CR passages delivered throughvoice-recognition software with a human voicemodel. Each participant was trained to use thecomputer-delivered intervention independent-ly. They received the CAI approximately threeto four times per week. Each participant individ-ually worked on a laptop. The program con-sisted of the following sequence:

N Setting of the ORF goal. Each participant wasshown her baseline data and goal prior to thestart of the session (e.g., 20 CWPM). All goalswere designed to be challenging but mostimportantly achievable for the learners. Thegoals were determined using the medianCWPM score during baseline assessments.Goals were continually increased as studentsmade progress in RR. Participants weretaught to follow the instructions embeddedinto RR and the researchers prompted thegirls if they were off task or if they forgotthe next step in the instructional sequence.

N Cold read. Each session began by havingthe participants read the assigned storybefore receiving intervention, for a 1-mintiming. The cold read was used to evaluatethe effectiveness of intervention.

N Practice words. Each story was accompa-nied by a predetermined set of three to fivepractice words that were identified as non-phonetic sight words by the researchers.Upon completion of the cold read each par-ticipant was prompted to review the prede-termined vocabulary. Participants wereinstructed to listen to the word, repeat afterthe computer, and read the word in the sen-tence. This sequence was repeated until allwords were practiced.

N Read to me. Once participants selected thepredetermined story, RR prompted them toclick on “Read to Me.” During this phaseparticipants listened to the complete storyand followed along by watching each


word be highlighted in blue as the storywas read.

N Read along. After the story was complete,the researcher prompted the participant toselect “Read Along.” During this phase,the computer prompted the participant toread along with the computer as it highlight-ed the word being read in blue.

N Listen to me. Immediately following “ReadAlong” the participants were prompted toclick on “Listen to Me.” During this phaseof instruction, participants were instructedto read independently for up to three1-min timings, trying to reach their CWPMgoal while maintaining 95% accuracy. Ifparticipants did not know a word or pausedfor 3 s, the computer prompted them to con-tinue reading. If the student did not knowthe word, the computer prompted the stu-dent to click on the word and the computerwould pronounce the word for the student.After completing the passage, the computerreviewed the missed words, presentingthem in the sentence as given in the pas-sage. If the goal was reached within threeattempts the participant was instructed tocontinue on to the timed reading step. Ifthe student did not reach his/her goal afterthe third try, the computer said, “Goodjob, let’s try again next time.” The studentthen practiced the same passage the follow-ing session. If the student failed to reach thegoal on the second session, the goal wasthen reduced by five words until the goalwas met. No passage needed to be prac-ticed more than three sessions.

N Timed reading. The timed reading was alsoknown as the treatment probe. This phasereplicated the procedures in “Listen to Me”with the exception that the computer didnot provide corrective feedback. Partici-pants were given two attempts to reach theirCWPM goal. If the student failed to reachthe goal after two tries, the computer said,“Good job, let’s try again the next time.”The same procedure was followed as with“Listen to Me.”

N Maze comprehension passage. After partici-pants met their goal during “Timed Read-ing” they were prompted to select “Maze.”The maze tested participants’ comprehen-sion on the passage that they successfullyread during the session.

N Charting of data. At the end of every ses-sion, data were displayed showing results

for the “Cold Read,” “Timed Reading,” and“Maze” assessment.

Maintenance

Maintenance probes on fluency and com-prehension were collected 2 weeks after theconclusion of intervention. Maintenance datawere not collected for Hazel due to her end ofthe year absences.

Procedural Integrity

Procedural checklists were used to exam-ine treatment integrity for the participants andthe primary experimenter. The proceduralintegrity checklists contained descriptions of10 critical elements of the intervention (e.g.,clicked “yes/listen” after directions were read,read the story loud and clear during Readwith Me) and were completed by the research-er after each intervention session. Proceduralintegrity for the three participants ranged from90%–100%. The procedural integrity datasheets also included space for the researcherto record notes on student behavior and atti-tudes, specifying how frequently theyprompted (i.e., verbally cued) each participant.Prompting could occur at any point during asession and was provided to address noncom-pliant behavior and participant difficultieswith RR (e.g., not reading along with voicemodel or difficulty clicking with the mouse).

Social Validity

Social validity questionnaires were usedto assess the degree to which participantsliked reading with RR, felt they had becomebetter readers, and thought their peers wouldenjoy reading with RR. Social validity ques-tionnaires were administered at the conclu-sion of intervention.

Interobserver and Interscorer Agreement

Procedural Fidelity

A second observer was present for a mini-mum of 33% of screening assessments (i.e.,DIBELS Next); baseline (AIMSweb and CR),intervention (i.e., AIMSweb and CR timed read-ing results), treatment (i.e., CR cold reads), gen-eralization (i.e., AIMSweb passages deliveredduring intervention), and maintenance probes;and social validity measures for each participant


with the exception of Hazel, for whom interob-server agreement data was not collected formaintenance and social validity. Exact agree-ment was used to calculate interobserver agree-ment (agreements divided by the number ofagreements plus disagreements and multipliedby 100). Interobserver agreement for proceduralfidelity across the three participants was 100%for screening assessments, 95.6% (range:93.3%–100%) for baseline probes, 99.2%(range: 98.5%–100%) for intervention and treat-ment probes, 99.7% (range: 99.1%–100%) forgeneralization probes, and 100% for mainte-nance probes and social validity.

Academic Outcomes

Interscorer agreement for Hazel’s baselineAIMSweb and CR passages was 100%, 90.0%for intervention sessions, 92.4% for treatmentprobes, and 98.6% for generalization probes.Interscorer agreement for Grace during eachphase of the study were as follows: DIBELSNext DORF scores had 100% agreement andDIBELS Next NWF scores had 92.6% agree-ment. During baseline, interscorer agreementon Grace’s CWPM scores on AIMSweb andCR passages averaged 87.4% and 100%,respectively. During treatment probes, inter-scorer agreement on Grace’s cold reads aver-aged 98.0%, 98.8% on intervention, and98.6% on generalization probes. Interscoreragreement for Skylar for the screening mea-sures were 100% for DIBELS Next, 98.5% forAIMSweb baseline passages, and 98.7% forCR baseline passages. Interscorer agreementfor intervention, treatment, and generalizationprobes was 100% for Skylar.

Results

Each of the three participants demonstratedimproved reading achievement and social behav-ior. Due to participation in the larger researchproject, interruptions in school schedules,absences, delays in parent permissions, schoolsuspensions, and so forth, the participantswere in intervention for varying amounts oftime. Moreover, the design did not permit us todraw conclusions as to the presence of a func-tional relation between the intervention andchanges in student outcomes. Therefore, find-ings are descriptive and should be interpretedas being derived from a case study rather thanfrom an experimental, single-case design.

Hazel

Reading Achievement

Hazel participated in 39 RR lessons andmade consistent progress during the intervention.Her CWPM mean score on cold readings of theCR passages during baseline was 13.6 (range:4–23) but increased to a mean of 22.0 (range:8–37) during intervention cold reads for a61.7% growth (see Figure 1). The generalizationAIMSweb passages (Figure 1) show a mean flu-ency score of 8.3 (range: 5–12) during baselinethat increased to a mean of 19.9 (range: 10–39)during intervention with a final score of 39CWPM at the end of her instruction. Hazel’smean performance on the CR comprehensionmaze during baseline was 1.6 (range: 0–3),which increased 437% during intervention toa mean of 8.6 (range: 3–15; see Figure 2). HerAIMSweb mean comprehension score on themazes was 1.6 (range: 0–3) during baseline,which rose to a mean of 3.9 (range: 2–5) duringintervention, more than doubling her baselineperformance. Hazel completed all 25 first-grade CR stories in the intervention set. To con-tinue her intervention in RR, Hazel was thenintroduced to the CR stories for second grade.

Social Behavior

During the first sessions with Hazel, severalsignificant problem behaviors emerged, includ-ing pouting, refusing to read, and reading in anextremely low voice. On one occasion theentire session was discontinued due to her non-compliance. During this initial period, sherequired an average of five behavior prompts(i.e., reminder about the expectation for on-task behavior) and seven task prompts (i.e.,directions to move to the next task) for anoverall average of 12 prompts. The researcherfrequently prompted Hazel to follow the pas-sages on the computer screen and to respondas directed. To increase her participation weinitially sent positive notes home to her mother,which did help but by the seventh interventionsession Hazel stated she no longer wanted thenotes, because she believed her motherstopped reading them. Hazel expressed greatinterest in video games so the reinforcer wasthen switched to playing a Ninja Turtles gamefor 3 min if she participated and met herCWPM goal. Two sessions after the new rein-forcer Hazel began responding without con-stant prodding, reading even beyond the1-min timings and receiving prompts only


when she forgot the next step. At this point sherequired an average of only one prompt persession and that prompt was just to raise herhand when the graph of her reading wasshown. She stated that she felt silly raising herhand, and because raising her hand was not anessential component of the intervention, it wasdiscontinued as a requirement. With “hand

raising” removed, Hazel’s prompts dropped tozero by the final intervention sessions. Otherpositive changes were that Hazel began to talkmore to the researcher, and she stated that sheread a story to her dad without missing anywords. Especially noteworthy was that her class-room teacher reported that Hazel displayedgreater reading confidence.

Figure 1. Hazel’s correct words per minute. Cold read represents unpracticed CR passages. Breaksin data path for cold read represent student absences.

Figure 2. Hazel’s correct responses per 3 min on maze assessments. CR 5 culturally relevantpassages. Breaks in data path for CR Maze represent student absences.


Grace

Reading Achievement

Grace participated in 32 RR lessons. Dur-ing baseline, Grace’s CWPM on cold readingsof CR passages averaged 9.8 CWPM (range4–14) and increased to an average of 29.9 (range:12–56) during intervention for a 205% growth.As shown in Figure 3, Grace steadily increasedher CR cold read fluency with a high score of56 CWPM. Her CR maintenance score 2 weeksafter intervention was 47 CWPM. Grace’s datafor the CWPM on AIMSweb generalization pas-sages show a baseline mean fluency score of17.0 (range: 7–24) that increased during interven-tion to a mean of 32.4 (range: 12–54). This was a91% growth over her baseline score. Two weeksafter intervention Grace read 57 CWPM on anovel AIMSweb passage, which was 40 CWPMand 235% better than her baseline average.Grace’s data for the CR maze responses (Figure4) show her mean comprehension score was2.7 (range: 2–4) during baseline. After interven-tion, she averaged 9.7 (range: 2–15) correctresponses for a 259% increase. Two weeksafter intervention, she scored 3 on a novel CRmaintenance maze, which was slightly higherthan baseline mean. For the maze comprehen-sion responses on AIMSweb Grace had a meanscore of 2 during baseline (range: 1–3), butincreased her average to 10.1 (range: 1–15)

over the course of intervention. This was a405% percentage growth over baseline. On themaintenance probe 2 weeks after intervention,Grace scored 4 correct on the maze, doublingher baseline mean.

Social Behavior

Grace initially required frequent behaviorprompts to complete the intervention. DuringGrace’s first six intervention sessions, she aver-aged seven behavior prompts. Behavior promptswere verbal or nonverbal urging her to proceedwith a prescribed task (e.g., what should youclick next?) or a reminder of the expectation foron-task behavior (e.g., your headphones shouldbe on at all times). On occasion Grace’s off-task behavior was so problematic that she hadto be escorted back to her classroom becauseshe refused to comply with the directions givenon the computer or provided by the researcher.Reading on the computer at times seemed to befrustrating for Grace. During the sixth sessionGrace stated that “reading on the computer wasso hard.” During other early sessions Gracemade comments that the readings were “toolong” or that she “can’t read fast.” However, asGrace’s reading proficiency improved, sodid her on-task behavior. By the end of thestudy she required only an average of fourbehavior prompts and, despite earlier resis-tance, stated she liked reading on the

Figure 3. Grace’s correct words per minute. Cold read represents unpracticed CR passages. Breaksin data path for cold read represent student absences.


computer and enjoyed seeing her progress asgraphed on the computers.

Skylar

Reading Achievement

Skylar participated in 10 RR lessons over a4-week period due to her high absenteeism.

Skylar did, however, show growth in both read-ing fluency and comprehension. During base-line, Skylar averaged 39.6 CWPM (range:30–43) on CR cold readings, which improvedto an average 52.5 CWPM (range: 41–77) afterintervention (see Figure 5). Her baseline AIMS-Web ORF was 30.5 CWPM (range: 30–31),which improved to an average of 48.5 CWPM

Figure 4. Grace’s correct responses per 3 min on maze assessments. CR 5 culturally relevantpassages. Breaks in data path for CR Maze represent student absences.

Figure 5. Skylar’s correct words per minute. Cold read represents unpracticed CR passages. Breaksin data path for cold read represent student absences.


(range: 47–50), for a 59% growth. Her compre-hension also improved from a baseline averageof 5.6 correct responses (range: 0–9) on CRmazes to an average of 13.2 correct responses(range: 5–17) (i.e., 136% growth) during inter-vention (see Figure 6). Skylar’s generalizationcomprehension scores improved from a base-line average of 1.2 correct responses to anintervention average 6.0 correct responses for400% growth. Her maintenance probe score 2weeks after intervention was 44 CWPM with14 correct maze responses, and her generaliza-tion maintenance probe was 47 CWPM witheight correct maze responses.

Social Behavior

Skylar’s teacher identified her as a studentwith extreme problem behavior (e.g., tantrums)and limited reading ability. Throughout theacademic year, prior to initiating this readingprogram, Skylar missed a great deal of instruc-tion as a result of suspensions, absences, andtimeouts, which increased during a 2-monthperiod with a long-term substitute teacherwho was less aware of Skylar’s special needs.Skylar was extremely hesitant to participate inthe study, mentioning on several occasionsduring the initial assessment that she couldnot read. Despite her significant behavior prob‐lems, even during the early stages of the inter-vention, Skylar required few adult prompts to

stay focused on RR. Skylar averaged twoprompts with a range of 0–4. At no point duringthe study was Skylar removed from interventiondue to noncompliance or tantrums. As shegained experience with RR, she became highlymotivated to progress through stories and seeher reading improve. During intervention ses-sions, Skylar consistently followed the rulesand executed the routines necessary to partici-pate (e.g., place headphones on ear and adjustmicrophone) without prompting.

Discussion

The students profiled in this study were partof a larger project examining the effects of theRR intervention on the reading fluency of first-and second-grade urban students who showedreading/special education risk. These three girlswere selected for this analysis because theypresented behavior problems as well as readingrisk, thereby increasing their vulnerability forschool failure. Identified by their classroomteachers and low performance in reading fluen-cy verified with formal assessments, the girlsmet the criteria of reading risk. Their behavior,as reported by their teachers and informallyobserved in the clinic setting, differed in topog-raphy and severity, but in each case interferedwith their schooling and reading achievement.In terms of our specified research questions,all three girls made substantial gains in reading

Figure 6. Skylar’s correct responses per 3 min on maze assessments. CR 5 culturally relevantpassages. Breaks in data path for CR Maze represent student absences.


fluency that generalized to the nonpracticedpassages and all three improved in their readingbehavior/confidence. We observed several pat-terns or commonalities.

First, all three girls were not only initiallyresistant to the intervention, but also statedthey could not read and were not good readers.We had no evidence that the girls believed theycould succeed in reading. This observation issomewhat related to the stereotype threatwork of Claude Steele (2010). According toSteele, stereotypes embedded from a very earlyage psychologically block the affected stu-dents’ performance when the students are inan evaluative situation. Although the threatarticulated by Steele functions largely undertesting conditions, we extend this concept tothe acquisition stage, suggesting that stereo-typed groups may be inhibited by negativeself-perceptions in other circumstances. Stereo-typed groups, according to Steele, need identitysafety, which essentially provides positive, non-threatening environments for learning. As such,learners are affirmed, high expectations are set,and learners are assured that they can reachthese standards. Similarly, Lee (2008) recom-mended that culturally and linguistically diversechildren need to be affirmed and that culturalresources could serve as buffers to externalforces that communicate directly and indirectlythat they cannot learn.

Programmed into the intervention wereidentity safety statements, telling the childrenthat we knew that the reading goals were highbut we were there to help them and make surethat they reached their goals. We also encour-aged growth mind set principles (Dweck,2007), advising that these practice passages willhelp to exercise their brain, helping them towork harder and to learn better. The childrenreceived these messages every session boththrough the computer software and from theresearchers. Although the specific effects of themulticomponent intervention cannot be dis-cerned, empirical evidence of the benefits ofsuch messages does exist (Steele, 2010). Theimportant point here is that within a relativelyshort period of time all the children began tosee the intervention setting as nonthreateningand the researchers as comforting, and that theycame to believe that they not only could meettheir goals but that they had the capacity tobecome competent readers. The CR practicepassages, which the researchers developed toreflect the background and interests of thispopulation (Cartledge et al., 2015; 2016), may

have further contributed to participants’ improvedattitudes. In earlier studies in the same schools,the students indicated that they liked the CR pas-sages mainly because they identified with them(Cartledge et al., 2016). In the previous study thestudents read the CR passages with slightly greaterfluency than thenon-CRpassages (Cartledgeet al.,2015).

A second commonality pertains to the roleof behavior and reading risk. Although the rela-tionship between problem behavior and readingis more likely to be correlational than causal(e.g., Algozzine et al., 2011), it is certainly possi-ble that participants’ behavior problems aggra-vated their reading problems. Certainly Skylar—who spent long stretches, sometimes as long as20 or more days, suspended from school—couldhave been much further along in reading given alearning environment that better supported herbehavioral needs. Even the two girls who didnot have extensive out-of-school suspensionseither shut down and refused to participate in(Hazel) or were too active/distracted to focuson (Grace) instruction. The students benefittedbehaviorally from this intervention. The interven-tion incorporated key principles of effectiveinstruction, including the critically needed com-ponents of structure and consistency. Skylar,who resisted change in classroom activities,thrived within the structured intervention setting.Each day she came in with a very brief acknowl-edgement of the researcher, put on her head-phones and immediately began her lessons.Even though Skylar presented the most seriousbehavior problems, she learned the sequencequickly, requiring fewer initial prompts than herpeers. These findings support empirical studiesshowing intensive, systematic instructionincreasing academic responding, academiclearning, and more adaptive behavior amongstudents with behavior disorders (Hagan-Burkeet al., 2015; Hagan-Burke et al., 2011; Lane et al.,2007; Sutherland & Snyder, 2007).

The importance of incentives to engage thestudents in the intervention is a third importantobservation from these cases. The RR interven-tion is designed so that students select stickersat the end of each session when they reachtheir goals. The computer software also calcu-lated errors and produced a graph showingstudents their progress compared to previousperformances. Students liked receiving thestickers and they were especially excited tosee their progress over a series of sessions.These three students, in contrast to most ofthe students in the larger project, needed


additional reinforcement and prompting tobecome engaged. For example, we used videogames to reinforce Hazel’s participation. Addi-tionally, her improved reading performanceseemed to serve as a natural reinforcer; herdesire to participate increased correspondingwith her reading skill. Indeed, she often contin-ued reading beyond the allotted time during theintervention sessions; reported her readingprowess to her family and teacher; and, accord-ing to her teacher, she declared with excite-ment, “I can read.” A similar sense ofconfidence and self-efficacy was noted withthe other two students, who by the end oftheir interventions were stating that they likedreading and felt they had become betterreaders.

Finally, all three girls were subjected tomoderate to extreme instability in their personaland school lives. Grace, for example, was anEnglish learner in a family of refugee statuswhere English was not the language spoken athome. She was attending a charter schoolwhere there was constant change in the schoolstaff and the physical facilities were inadequate.Similar volatility was observed for the other twogirls except Hazel did have the benefit of expe-rienced, stable school personnel. Nevertheless,the urban school setting did present specialproblems even for the two girls in the estab-lished city schools. To illustrate, things deterio-rated greatly for Skylar when she had asubstitute teacher for 2 months. This teacher,new to Skylar’s situation, did not know how toengage her productively and frequently usedexclusionary practices with Skylar. The urbanschools for these low-income children pre-sented the previously noted limitations of inad-equate resources, staff volatility, and staffinexperience. In all three schools, class sizeswere large (approximately 30 students) withconsiderable transitioning among the pupilpopulation. None of the girls had been targetedfor supplementary or Tier II interventions.Despite these conditions, the studentsresponded positively to the RR interventionwith increases in reading fluency, reading com-prehension, and in their attitudes towards them-selves as readers.

Limitations

There are several limitations for this study.First, the study used an AB design that onlyprovides descriptive data. Although each partic-ipant demonstrated improvement in reading and

a decrease in problem behavior, a causal rela-tionship between (a) the intervention and partic-ipant outcomes and (b) behavior problems andreading performance cannot be determined.Second, due to the end of the school year, main-tenance data on reading fluency and compre-hension are limited. Additionally, maintenanceand generalization data on social behaviorwere not collected. Future studies should incor-porate analyses of social behavior both after theconclusion of the intervention and in variousuntrained environments. Third, because eachparticipant demonstrated a unique set of mal-adaptive behaviors combined with one-on-oneadult (i.e., researcher) attention during interven-tion it is difficult to generalize these findings toother students with reading/special educationrisk or to other educational settings. For example,Hazel required more powerful reinforcers (e.g.,video game time) to engage actively in the inter-vention. Hazel’s reinforcement continuedthrough the end of the study, therefore becomingpart of her intervention package. Although shedemonstrated greater interest in reading andoften continued reading beyond the requiredtime, we did not determine if these improve-ments would continue without the incentive.Nor did we determine if the participants wouldhave appropriately engaged in the interventionwithout the researcher’s constant presence.Fourth, although all participants reported theyhad become better readers, formal social validitydata were not collected from the teachers. Fifth,we measured social behavior by counting thenumber of experimenter prompts to participantsrather than directly observing participants’ off-task behaviors. Although these data indicatedimprovement in following the sequence, reliabil-ity observations were not conducted and it can-not be determined how focused the learnerswould have been if not under the researchers’constant scrutiny. Finally, it is also worth notingthat we did not conduct a component analysison the multicomponent intervention to deter-mine which specific features were associatedwith the observed changes. These limitationsnotwithstanding, the findings highlight a poten-tially viable intervention for young urban chil-dren with reading and behavior risk.

Conclusion

These participants and other research(e.g., Hagan-Burke et al., 2011; Sutherland& Snyder, 2007) show intensive interventionswith high rates of academic responding


can result in academic gains and improvedbehavior during instruction. As these prelimi-nary findings suggest, we believe that evi-dence-based interventions that incorporateCR instruction and are delivered throughwell-designed technology can help toaddress the many instructional and resourcechallenges diverse learners with dual behav-ioral and academic risk experience in urbanschools.

REFERENCESAimsweb. (n.d.). Reading assessment resource for

educators. Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/assessments/features/assessments/reading-cbm.

Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011).Reexamining the relationship between academicachievement and social behavior. Journal of PositiveBehavior Interventions, 13(1), 3–16. doi:10.1177/1098300709359084

Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Katz, R., Fien, H., Seeley,J., Kame’enui, E., & Thomas Beck, C. (2008).Reading fluency as a predictor of reading profi-ciency in low performing high poverty schools.School Psychology Review, 37, 18–37.

Bierman, K. L., Coie, J., Dodge, K., Greenberg, M.,Lochman, J., McMohan, R., Pinderhughes, E., &Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.(2013). School outcomes of aggressive-disruptivechildren: Prediction from kindergarten risk fac-tors and impact of the fast track preventionprogram. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 114–130.doi: 10.1002/ab.21467

Bishop, R. S. (2007). Free within ourselves: The devel-opment of African American children’s literature.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Black, M. P., Tepperman, J., & Narayanan, S. S.(2011). Automatic prediction of children’s read-ing ability for high-level literacy assessment.IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Lan-guage Processing, 19, 1015–1028.

Bowman-Perrott, L., Benz, M. R., Hsu, H., Kwok, O.,Eisterhold, L. A., & Zhang, D. (2011). Patterns andpredictors of disciplinary exclusion over time: Ananalysis of the SEELS national data set. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 83–96.doi: 10.1177/1063426611407501

Cartledge, G., & Dukes, C. (2009). Disproportionalityof African American children in special educa-tion. In L. C. Tillman (Ed.), The SAGE handbookof African American education (pp. 383–398).Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Cartledge, G., Keesey, S., Bennett, J., Gallant, D., &Ramnath, R. (2015). Effects of culturally relevantmaterials on the reading performance of second-grade African Americans with reading/specialeducation risk. Multiple Voices, 15(1), 22–43.

Cartledge, G., Keesey, S., Bennett, J., Ramnath, R., &Council, M. (2016). Culturally relevant literature:

What matters most to primary-aged urban lear-ners. Reading & Writing Quarterly: OvercomingLearning Difficulties, 32, 399–426. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2014.955225.

Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice.(2000). A challenging future: Current barriersand recommended action for our field. Retrievedfrom http://cecp.air.org/interact/authoronline/january98/ineffective.htm

Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., &Harn, B. A. (2004). Beginning reading interven-tion as inoculation or insulin: First-grade readingperformance of strong responders to kindergar-ten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities,37(2), 90–104.

Debnam, K. J., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J., Cash, A. H., &Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). An examination of theassociation between observed and self-reportedculturally proficient teaching practices. Psychol-ogy in the Schools, 52, 533–548. doi:10.1002/pits.21845

Dewey, E. N., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., &Kaminski, R. A. (2015). DIBELS Next technicaladequacy brief. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measure-ment Group, Inc.

Dweck, C. S. (2007). The secret to raising smart kids.Scientific American Mind, 18(6), 36–43.

Ebe, A. E. (2010). Culturally relevant texts and read-ing assessment for English language learners.Reading Horizons, 50, 193–210.

Finch, M. E. (2012). Special considerations withresponse to intervention and instruction forstudents with diverse backgrounds. Psychologyin the Schools, 49, 285–296. doi:10.1002/pits.21597

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement for progress monitoring inreading. In Ideas that work: U.S. Office of SpecialEducation Programs. Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/summer_institute/2007/Intro%20reading/IntroReading_Manual_2007.pdf

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Powell, S. R.,Capizzi, A. M., & Seethaler, P. M. (2006). Theeffects of computer-assisted instruction on num-ber combination skill in at-risk first graders. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050701

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R.(2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator ofreading competence: A theoretical, empirical,and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Read-ing, 5, 239–256.

Gibson, L., Cartledge, G., Keyes, S., & Yawn, C.(2014). The effects of a supplementary computer-ized fluency intervention on the generalizationof the oral reading fluency and comprehensionof first-grade students. Education and Treatmentof Children, 37(1), 25–51.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2011).Dynamicindicators of basic early literacy skills (Nexted.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Develop‐ment of Education Achievement. Retrieved from


http://www.d11.org/edss/assessment/DIBELS%20NextAmplify%20Resources/DIBELSNext_AssessmentManual.pdf

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Dewey, E. N., Wallin, J.,Powell‐Smith, K.A., & Latimer, R. J. (2013).DIBELSnext technical manual. Eugene, OR: DynamicMeasurement Group, Inc. Retrieved from http://dibels.org

Hagan-Burke, S., Gilmour, M. W., Gerow, S., &Crowder, W. C. (2015). Identifying academicdemands that occasion problem behaviors forstudents with behavioral disorders: Illustrationsat the elementary school level. Behavior Modi‐fication, 39(1), 215–241. doi: 10.1177/0145445514566505.

Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Zou, Y., Johnson, C.,Simmons, D., & Coyne, M. D. (2011). An exami-nation of problem behaviors and reading out-comes in kindergarten students. Journal ofSpecial Education, 45(3), 131–148. doi:10.1177/0022466909359425

Hapstak, J., & Tracey, D. H. (2007). Effects of assisted-repeated reading on students of varying readingability: A single-subject experimental researchstudy. Reading Horizons, 47, 315–334.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Read-ing fluency assessment and instruction:What, why,and how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702–714.

Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Introduc-tion to this special issue: The DNA of readingfluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5,203–210.

Kaufman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2012). Characteris-tics of emotional and behavior disorders of chil-dren and youth (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Kempe, C., Gustafson, S., & Samuelsson, S. (2011).Health and disability: A longitudinal study of earlyreading difficulties and subsequent problem beha-viors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52,242–250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00870.x

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klinger, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Reu-tebuch, C. K., & Kouzekanani, K. (2006). Improvingthe reading comprehension of middle school stu-dents with disabilities through computer-assistedcollaborative strategic reading. Remedial andSpecial Education, 27, 235–249. doi: 10.1177/07419325060270040401

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990). At theschoolhouse door: An examination of programsand policies for children with behavioral andemotional problems. New York: Bank Street Col-lege of Education.

Kozleski, E. B., Sobel, D., & Taylor, S. V. (2003).Embracing and building culturally responsivepractices. Multiple Voices, 6(1), 73–87.

Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A reviewof developmental and remedial practices. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3

Laffey, J. M., Espinosa, L., Moore, J., & Lodree, A.(2003). Supporting learning and behavior of at-riskyoung children: Computers in urban education.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,35, 423–440.

Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Redding-Rhodes, J., Phillips, A.,& Welsh, M. T. (2007). Outcomes of a teacher-led reading intervention for elementary studentsat risk for behavioral disorders. ExceptionalChildren, 74, 47–70. doi: 10.1177/001440290707400103

Lee, C. D. (2008). Synthesis of research on the roleof culture in learning among African Americanyouth: The contributions of Asa G. Hilliard, III.Review of Educational Research, 78, 797–827.doi: 10.3102/0034654308320967

Leonard, J., Davis, J. E., & Sidler, J. L. (2005). Culturalrelevance and computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,37(3), 263–284.

Lo, Y., & Cartledge, G. (2004). Total class peertutoring and interdependent group-orientedcontingency: Improving the academic and task-related behaviors of fourth-grade urban students.Education and Treatment of Children, 27,235–262.

Moore, T. (2008, January 1). The Ohio Test ofEnglish Language Acquisition: Technical manu‐al. Retrieved from http://www.ohiodocs.org/Technical%20Docs/TR%202008%20-%2012%20OTELA%20Technical%20Manual.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. U.S.Department of Education. (2007). The conditionof education 2007 (NCES 2007-064). Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school’simplementation of RTI with English LanguageLearners: “Referring into RTI.” Journal of LearningDisabilities, 43, 269–288. doi: 10.1177/0022219409355474

Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition. (2010).March 2010 administration. Retrieved fromhttps://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Testing/Testing-Analysis-and-Statistics/Statistical-Summaries-and-Item-Analysis-Reports/March-2010-OTELA-Statistical-Summary.pdf.aspx

Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition. (2015).Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Testing/Ohio-English-Language-Proficiency-Assessment-OELPA/2015-OTELA-Int-Guide.pdf.aspx

Pierce, M. E., Wechsler-Zimring, A., Noam, G., Wolf,M., & Katzir, T. (2013). Behavioral problems andreading difficulties among language minorityand monolingual urban elementary school


students. Reading Psychology, 34, 182–205.doi: 10.1080/02702711.2011.626108

Pimperton, H., & Nation, K. (2014). Poor compre-henders in the classroom: Teacher ratings ofbehavior in children with poor reading compre-hension and its relationship with individual differ-ences in working memory. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 47, 199–207. doi:10.1177/0022219412454172

Steele, C. M. (2010).Whistling Vivaldi and other cluesto how stereotypes affect us. New York: W.W.Norton & Company.

Sutherland, K. S., & Snyder, A. (2007). Effects ofreciprocal peer tutoring and self-graphing onreading fluency and classroom behavior of mid-dle school students with emotional or behavioraldisorders. Journal of Emotional and BehavioralDisorders, 15(2), 103–118. doi:10.1177/10634266070150020101

Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluencyand its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading,5, 211–238.

Zigmond, N. (2006). Twenty-four months after highschool: Paths taken by youth diagnosed withsevere emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal

of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14(2),99–107. doi:10.1177/10634266060140020601

AUTHORS’ NOTE

This study was part of a larger grantsupported by the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No.R324A120103). The opinions expressed hereare our own and not necessarily those of theInstitute of Education Sciences.

Address correspondence to Gwendolyn Cart‐ledge, The Ohio State University, A350 PAES,305 Annie & John Glenn Ave., Columbus, OH43210; E-mail: [email protected].

MANUSCRIPT

Initial Acceptance: 6/9/2016Final Acceptance: 6/17/2016


reducing risk through a supplementary reading intervention ... · reducing risk through a...

Documents