scholarly journals Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for preschool to grade 2 children: a restricted systematic review

Author(s):  
Sharon Goldfeld ◽  
Ruth Beatson ◽  
Amy Watts ◽  
Pamela Snow ◽  
Lisa Gold ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Nilvius ◽  
Rickard Carlsson ◽  
Linda Fälth ◽  
Thomas Nordström

AbstractObjectives: This PRISMA pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if K–2 students at-risk for reading impairment benefited from tier 2 reading intervention compared to teaching as usual (TAU) on word decoding outcomes.Eligibility criteria: Adequately sized randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within the Response to Intervention (RtI) model were included. Trials targeted K–2 at-risk students compared with TAU controls, for at least 20 sessions of intervention in school with more than 30 students per group. Information sources: A database search of ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, Web of Science and Google Scholar took place, followed by hand searches of reviews and meta-analyses. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (Rob 2), R-index and funnel plots. Included studies: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis.Synthesis of results: The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges’ g = 0.31 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding more than students receiving TAU. Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect was not dependent on a single study. Description of the effect: Students at-risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading interventions as evidenced by a small effect on decoding ability. Strengths and limitations of evidence: This systematic review used the PRISMA gold standard but only four studies met inclusion criteria.Interpretation: Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can support decoding development.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joy Dangora Erickson ◽  
Alessandra E. Ward ◽  
Jacquelynne Anne Boivin ◽  
Beth Fornauf

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 549-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariane Perin da Silva ◽  
Ademir Antonio Comerlatto Junior ◽  
Maria Cecília Bevilacqua ◽  
Simone Aparecida Lopes-Herrera

Author(s):  
Jeanne Wanzek ◽  
Stephanie Al Otaiba ◽  
Brandy Gatlin

2020 ◽  
pp. 074193252093409
Author(s):  
Kristen L. McMaster ◽  
Kristi Baker ◽  
Rachel Donegan ◽  
Maria Hugh ◽  
Katherine Sargent

Many educators are unprepared to meet the needs of students with the most intensive reading intervention needs. The purpose of this review was to identify how researchers have provided professional development (PD) to support educators’ implementation of intensive reading interventions, the extent to which these approaches included essential PD elements, and how researchers have measured implementer outcomes. In the 26 studies reviewed, implementers received initial training, and most received some form of ongoing support. Most studies appeared to incorporate one or more essential PD elements, though many lacked sufficient detail regarding the presence of these elements. Researchers used a variety of fidelity measures and other methods to assess implementer outcomes, which were typically positive. Results of this review indicate the need for researchers to report more detailed descriptions of PD activities, as well as the need for continued research on how best to support teachers’ implementation of intensive reading interventions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Arciuli ◽  
Benjamin Bailey

Purpose Children with autism have an increased likelihood of reading difficulties. The reasons for this are numerous and varied, but many children with autism can learn to read when they are provided with evidence-based early reading instruction. Method Here, we provide an overview of some of the factors that impact early reading development for children with autism and a rationale for the provision of comprehensive early reading instruction consistent with the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP). We discuss research on NRP instruction for children with autism, including some of our own empirical studies. We also discuss some areas of research that were not emphasized by the NRP but that we view as important. We offer recommendations that extend beyond NRP guidelines in order to advance knowledge and improve practice. Conclusions Comprehensive early reading instruction holds great promise for children with autism, but there are gaps in our understanding that need to be addressed. These include the most effective method(s) for tailoring reading instruction to the needs of the individual while optimizing delivery to small groups of children, supporting skills and making other accommodations not outlined by the NRP, and consideration of bilingualism and of reading instruction in languages other than English, among other issues. While our focus in this review article is early reading instruction for children with autism who use oral language, we acknowledge that there is a major gap in the literature concerning reading instruction for those who do not use oral language. We hope that this review article will be helpful to clinicians, educators, and researchers alike, as well as children with autism and their families, friends, and support networks.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Meeks ◽  
Jennifer Stephenson ◽  
Coral Kemp ◽  
Alison Madelaine

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document