Neddenriep, C., Fritz, A., & Carrier, M. (2011)

7/23/2019 Neddenriep, C., Fritz, A., & Carrier, M. (2011).

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/neddenriep-c-fritz-a-carrier-m-2011 1/14

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 48(1), 2011 C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com DOI: 10.1002/pits.20542

ASSESSING FOR GENERALIZED IMPROVEMENTS IN READING COMPREHENSION

BY INTERVENING TO IMPROVE READING FLUENCY

CHRISTINE E. NEDDENRIEP, ABIGAIL M. FRITZ, AND MIRANDA E. CARRIER

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

The relationship between reading fluency and comprehension was evaluated in five 4th-grade stu-dents. These students were identified as being at risk of not meeting yearly goals in reading fluencyand comprehension based on fall benchmark assessment data. A brief intervention assessment wasused to determine which intervention components would be essential to improving reading fluencyacross the five participants. As a result, the combination of repeated practice with performancefeedback and error correction was implemented using instructional-level reading materials twiceper week for 30-minute sessions with progress monitored weekly using AIMSweb measures of oral reading fluency and comprehension. Empirical, single-case designs were used to evaluate theimpact of the program across these five students with assessed, generalized improvements in com-prehension. Results indicated increased rate of words read correctly per minute with generalizedincreases in comprehension for four of five participants. Implications for practice and directionsfor future research are discussed. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

As school psychologists are increasingly working within a changing model of service delivery,

Response to Intervention (RtI; Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005), they require valid and reliable mea-

sures to assess students’ progress within the curriculum and their response to changes in instruction.

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a valid and reliable system developed at the University

of Minnesota more than 30 years ago to be part of a problem-solving approach for special educators

evaluating students’ progress toward Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives

(Deno & Mirkin, 1977). Increasingly, school psychologists are using this measurement technology

to assess general education students’ proficiency in basic skill areas (e.g., reading, math, written

expression, spelling) and to monitor students’ progress within the curriculum. CBM is well-matchedto this task as these procedures are brief, requiring 1 to 3 minutes to administer; grade appropriate,

resembling the typical tasks (e.g., reading aloud) and materials (e.g., reading passages) used in

instruction; repeatable, providing alternate forms of equivalent difficulty; and sensitive, reflecting

small changes in performance over time (Shapiro, 2004). As school psychologists work within a

problem-solving model, CBM procedures yield essential data to inform their decision making about

students’ growth in response to instruction (Deno, Espin, & Fuchs, 2002).

CBM is described as a general outcome measure, meaning that these test procedures do

not measure all aspects of a child’s academic performance but serve as indicators of academic

proficiency (Deno, 1985). The most frequently used and researched CBM of reading proficiency

(R-CBM) assesses oral reading fluency. When R-CBM is assessed, students are asked to read aloudfrom grade-appropriate passages for 1 minute. Substitutions, omissions, and errors in pronunciation

are noted, and the number of correctly read words in 1 minute is recorded. This rate measure

reflects both the speed and accuracy of reading grade-appropriate materials. Numerous studies have

demonstrated that this rate measure is reliable, sensitive to changes in performance over time, and

related to established norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures of reading. In addition,

it discriminates between higher and lower performing students (see Martson, 1989 and Wayman,

Wallace, Wiley, Ticha, & Espin, 2007 for reviews).

Whereas the technical adequacy of R-CBM has been established, individuals have questioned

the value of assessing oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading proficiency (e.g., Mehrens &

Correspondence to: Christine E. Neddenriep, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater,

800 West Main Street, Whitewater, WI 53190. E-mail: [email protected]

14



Generalized Improvements in Reading Comprehension 15

Clarizio, 1993; Paris, 2005; Yell, 1992). One of the reasons for the skepticism is premised on the

assertion that fluency also reflects comprehension, the goal of reading. This relationship between

fluency and comprehension has been established by researchers correlating R-CBM measures of

reading fluency with established, norm-referenced measures of reading comprehension (e.g., Bain &

Garlock, 1992; Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982; Fuchs & Deno, 1992; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxell, 1988;Jenkins & Jewell, 1993; Martson, 1989; Reschly, Busch, Betts, Deno, & Long, 2009; Shinn, Good,

Knutson, Tilly, & Collins, 1992). Reported correlations between R-CBM and comprehension are

moderate to strong, ranging from .54 to .93, and have been found to be stronger than those correlations

between more typical measures of comprehension (e.g., question answering) and norm-referenced

measures of comprehension. Although the criterion-related validity of R-CBM is supported by these

group studies, school psychologists assisting teachers in addressing the reading deficits of their

students may be more concerned with the relationship between reading fluency and comprehension

at the individual student level (Markell & Deno, 1997; Wayman et al., 2007).

At the individual level, the relationship between reading fluently and understanding what one

reads has been described theoretically. One such theory explains that, as students become more skilledin decoding and identifying words, their recognition becomes more automatic. This automaticity

allows the reader to spend less time and effort sounding out words and to retain more cognitive

resources for understanding what is being read (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). This theory supports

the positive correlation between reading fluency and comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins,

2001; Markell & Deno, 1997; Martson, 1989), but this relationship is not causal. Reading fluency

has been identified as one of several factors necessary but not sufficient for comprehension (National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000; Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Snow,

Burns, & Griffin, 1998). As a result, when educators implement interventions to improve fluency,

subsequent changes in comprehension can be predicted but not guaranteed (Paris, 2005).

Markell and Deno (1997) directly assessed changes in incomprehension affected by changes inoral reading fluency at the individual level. Specifically, 42 third-grade students were presented with

progressively more difficult passages to read. Each student was presented with three reading passages

at the second-, fourth-, and sixth-grade levels. The students then completed literal comprehension

questions regarding each passage and a Maze passage developed based on the passages. The indi-

vidual analyses revealed that the amount of change in reading fluency was an important factor when

making predictions about general improvements in reading proficiency, including comprehension.

These changes needed to be sufficiently large (e.g., 15–20 words) to reliably predict changes in

comprehension. If a student’s oral reading fluency increased at a rate of 1 – 2 words correct per week

on average, then changes in comprehension would be evidenced in approximately 10–20 weeks of

instruction. Also, Markell and Deno found that a minimum criterion of reading 90 words correctly

per minute was required for students in the study to be able to answer most literal comprehension

questions (70%). Whereas this minimum criterion of 90 words read correctly per minute does not

guarantee comprehension for all students, Markell and Deno asserted that it provided a useful guide

for instructional decision making.

The purpose of the current study was to further our understanding of the relationship between

changes in reading fluency and associated changes in comprehension at the individual level. Whereas

Markell and Deno (1997) had manipulated reading fluency by exposing students to differing levels

of text within a single session, the current study altered performance in reading fluency across time

and assessed corresponding changes in comprehension. Given Markell and Deno’s (1997) assertion

that large differences in reading aloud are necessary before changes in reading comprehension can be

demonstrated, the current study used evidence-based instructional components to affect the reading

fluency of 5 fourth-grade students across a total of 15 weeks and to assess generalized improvements

in comprehension during the same time period. The current study also evaluated Markell and Deno’s

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits



16 Neddenriep, Fritz, and Carrier

finding of a minimum criterion necessary for comprehension. The results have important implications

for individual progress monitoring and for designing interventions for students with reading fluency

deficits.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

The participants included 5, general education, fourth-grade students (2 boys and 3 girls),

ranging in age from 9 to 10 years old, and attending an elementary school in the Midwestern United

States. These students were nominated by their teachers for participation based on the results of

fall benchmark assessment data, which were collected in September, approximately 2 weeks after

the start of the school year using three AIMSweb R-CBM Fall Benchmark Assessment Passages.

The median scores for each student were 31, 42, 43, 48, and 61 words correct per minute (WCPM),

reflecting a frustration level in fourth-grade material according to Deno and Mirkin’s instructional

level criteria (70–100 WCPM; 1977). In comparison, the average fourth-grade student at the sameschool read at an instructional level, 85 WCPM. Thus, these students were performing below the

25th percentile and were not currently receiving additional services or supports.

The school was located in a rural setting, with approximately 42% of the students receiving free

or reduced lunch. The racial makeup of the school was predominately White, as were the participants

in the study. Latino students made up 28% of the school population, Asian students 3%, and Black

students 2%. All procedures were conducted in separate rooms a short distance from the students’

classrooms. Procedures were conducted after the school day, 2 days per week across a total of 15

weeks.

Materials

AIMSweb R-CBM (Shinn & Shinn, 2002a) and Maze (Shinn & Shinn, 2002b) passages from

the AIMSweb Progress Monitoring and RtI System (www.aimsweb.com) were used to determine the

participants’ initial level of reading performance (fluency and comprehension) as well as to assess

the impact of the reading fluency intervention. AIMSweb Grade 4 Standard Progress Monitoring

Reading Assessment Passages contain 350 words and are written as a story with a beginning and an

end. Thirty passages are available of equivalent difficulty at Grade 4, as determined by the Fry (1968)

readability formula. Alternate-form reliability for the passages was reported to be .85 (Howe & Shinn,

2002). AIMSweb Grade 4 Maze Assessment Passages also contain 350-word stories. Beginning with

the second sentence of each story, approximately every seventh word is omitted and replaced with

three words inside parentheses. One word correctly completes the sentence maintaining the meaning.

The two alternative words are distracters—one is a near distracter, a word of the same part of speech

(e.g., noun, verb, adverb) as the correct word, but does not make sense or preserve the meaning of

the sentence; the other distracter is a far distracter, a word randomly selected from the story that

does not make sense. Thirty alternative passages of equivalent difficulty are available for continuous

assessment. The Maze task has been found to be a reliable measure of reading comprehension for

students in elementary, middle, and high school (Brown-Chidsey, Davis, & Maya, 2003). As well,

the concurrent and criterion-related validity of the Maze task has been well-established (Fuchs &

Fuchs, 1992; Jenkins & Jewell, 1993).

Passages and Sight Phrases from the Great Leaps Elementary Program (Grades 3 – 5; Campbell,

2005) were used within the intervention. The Sight Phrases component includes progressively more

difficult pages of phrases, including high-frequency words found in the English language. Each page

of phrases includes an increasing total number of words grouped in three-word phrases, designed to

be read aloud in 1 minute with no errors to demonstrate fluency. The Passages component includes





progressively more difficult stories with an increasing total number of words designed to be read

aloud in 1 minute with two or fewer errors. The Great Leaps Program also includes graphs to chart

students’ progress. In addition, stopwatches and kitchen timers were used.

Dependent VariablesThree dependent measures of reading proficiency were assessed: oral reading fluency (the rate

of words read correctly per minute in R-CBM passages), errors per minute (the rate of errors made

per minute in R-CBM passages), and responses correct per 3 minutes (the rate of correctly selected

words per 3 minutes in Maze passages).

Procedural Conditions

Brief Intervention Assessment. Based on the benchmark data mentioned earlier in this article

indicating that these five students were reading at a frustration level in fourth-grade materials, a brief

intervention assessment (Witt, Daly, & Noell, 2000) was conducted to determine which instructional

component(s) might be essential to improving their reading fluency. Several instructional componentshave been found to be effective in increasing reading fluency, including practice, modeling, error

correction, contingent reinforcement, and performance feedback. Repeated reading is an evidence-

based strategy that incorporates the primary component of practice. This intervention has been

shown to improve students’ speed, accuracy, and understanding of the passage read (NICHHD,

2000). Therrien (2004) found that, when repeated reading is used to improve students’ overall

reading fluency and comprehension, several essential components are necessary to be included: the

student reads aloud to an adult; the adult corrects errors to ensure accurate practice; and the adult

provides feedback regarding performance to ensure mastery.

Given these essential components, each participant was exposed to stacked conditions of re-

peated practice, performance feedback, and error correction following a baseline condition withinthe brief intervention assessment. When the students were given the opportunity to practice, they

read the passage three times. When the students were provided with performance feedback in ad-

dition to practice, they were told how many words they had read in 1 minute previously, and they

were asked to read the current passage three times. They were told how many words they had read in

1 minute on that passage in comparison. When they were provided with error correction in addition

to practice and performance feedback, they were told which words they had mispronounced or

omitted, prompted to read each phrase with the error word corrected three times, and then asked

to reread the passage two more times. They were again told how many words they had read in

1 minute on that passage in comparison to the previous passage. The participants’ response to each

condition was assessed using four different AIMSweb R-CBM passages. The number of words readcorrectly and errors made per minute were graphed and compared to a baseline level of perfor-

mance to determine which component(s) may be essential to improving the performance of each

participant.

Extended Assessment. Following the collection of three additional baseline data points across

both AIMSweb measures of R-CBM and Maze, the combination of practice, performance feedback,

and error correction was implemented using the Passages and Sight Phrases from the Great Leaps

Elementary Program (Grades 3 – 5; Campbell, 2005) described earlier in text (see Materials section).

The five students were grouped based on their similar reading levels into two pairs (Ethan and Maggie;

Laura and Allie) and a single student (Glen) working with three adults for 30 minutes 2 days a week

across 12 weeks of intervention. Students repeatedly practiced reading the Sight Phrases and Passages

aloud to the adult until they were able to successfully read the Sight Phrases with no errors in 1 minute

and the Passages with 2 or fewer errors in 1 minute. Errors were corrected following each reading,





and feedback regarding their performance was provided and graphed visually. Progress was assessed

weekly using AIMSweb measures of R-CBM and Maze.

Design and Analysis

Empirical, single-case designs (Skinner, 2004) were used to demonstrate the change in fluencyover time between baseline and treatment conditions and to evaluate the concurrent change in

comprehension over the same time period at the individual level. Whereas this design does not allow

us to make a causal inference regarding the intervention, it does allow us to demonstrate the change

in both measures for each participant. The data were graphed and visually inspected comparing

baseline to intervention levels for changes in level and trend (i.e., mean level of performance and

rate of improvement). The percentage of change and standardized effect sizes were also calculated

to determine the difference between the intervention and baseline levels. Percentage of change was

calculated by subtracting the mean of the baseline observations from the mean of the intervention

observations and dividing the result by the mean of the baseline observations and multiplying by

100. The standardized effect size was calculated by subtracting the mean of the baseline observationsfrom the mean of the intervention observations and dividing the result by the standard deviation of

the baseline observations (Shernoff, Kratochwill, & Stoiber, 2002).

Integrity of Experimental Procedures and Inter-Scorer Agreement

Experimenters completed checklists containing the steps pertaining to all experimental pro-

cedures to record procedural integrity data. These data showed that the experimenter implemented

tutoring procedures with 100% integrity across all sessions. A second observer independently

recorded the number of words read correctly per minute and scored the number of correct responses

made per 3 minutes across 20% of the progress-monitoring sessions. Inter-observer agreement was

calculated as the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreementsand multiplied by 100. Average inter-scorer agreement was 99.6% (96, 100) for words read correctly

and 99.2% (94, 100) for responses correctly made per 3 minutes.

RESULTS

The results of the brief intervention assessment for the five participants are summarized in

Table 1. Across all five participants, the addition of performance feedback and practice was effective

in increasing the number of words read correctly per minute over baseline and practice alone

conditions. The addition of error correction led to a higher rate of words read correctly for three of

the five participants with five or fewer errors for four of the five participants. Thus, the addition of

error correction was determined to be beneficial to contribute to fluent (fast and accurate) practice.

Table 1WCPM and Errors per Minute (EPM) across Participants and Conditions within the Brief Intervention

Assessment

Baseline Practice Practice + Performance Practice+ Performance Feedback + Error

Participant WCPM (EPM) WCPM (EPM) Feedback WCPM (EPM) Correction WCPM (EPM)

Ethan 60 (8) 58 (14) 94 (7) 104 (8)

Maggie 82 (6) 81 (6) 119 (2) 133 (3)

Laura 74 (6) 73 (5) 130 (7) 109 (5)Allie 60 (2) 52 (9) 120 (0) 114 (5)

Glen 35 (6) 39 (8) 61 (4) 63 (5)





The results of the implementation of practice, performance feedback, and error correction on

the participants’ reading fluency and assessed generalization to comprehension are displayed in

Figures 1–5 with summary data included in Table 2. Ethan initially read an average of 78 WCPM

across baseline sessions. During the 12 weeks of intervention, he read an average of 100 WCPM

FIGURE 1. Ethan’s reading fluency assessed across baseline and intervention conditions with assessed generalization tocomprehension.





FIGURE 2. Maggie’s reading fluency assessed across baseline and intervention conditions with assessed generalization tocomprehension.

(75,125) reflecting a 27% increase over his baseline performance (average gain of 22 words) and an

effect size of 1.19, resulting in his reading at a mastery level across the last three consecutive weeks

of intervention (105, 125, and 122 WCPM). During the same period of time, Ethan’s comprehension

increased, reflecting an average rate of improvement of 1 word correctly selected per week in





FIGURE 3. Laura’s reading fluency assessed across baseline and intervention conditions with assessed generalization tocomprehension.

assessed Maze passages (see Figure 1 and Table 2). Sustained improvements in comprehension

became evident after 5 weeks of fluency intervention.

Maggie initially read an average of 86 WCPM across baseline sessions. During the 12 weeks

of intervention, she read an average of 97 WCPM, reflecting a 13% increase over her baseline





FIGURE 4. Allie’s reading fluency assessed across baseline and intervention conditions with assessed generalization tocomprehension.

performance (average gain of 11 words) and an effect size of .65, resulting in her reading at a

mastery level across the last three consecutive weeks of intervention (110, 131, and 110 WCPM).

During the same period of time, Maggie’s comprehension increased, reflecting an average rate of

improvement of .86 words correctly selected per week in assessed Maze passages (see Figure 2 and





FIGURE 5. Glen’s reading fluency assessed across baseline and intervention conditions with assessed generalization tocomprehension.

Table 2). Sustained improvements in comprehension became evident after just 4 weeks of fluency

intervention.

Laura initially read an average of 74 WCPM across baseline sessions. During the 12 weeks

of intervention, she read an average of 88 WCPM, reflecting an18% increase over her baseline





Table 2Summarized Changes in Reading Fluency and Comprehension across the Five Participants

Average Gain in Percent Change in Effect ROI in Instructional

Participant Number of Words Reading Fluency Size Comprehension Level

Ethan 22 27% 1.19 1.0 Mastery

Maggie 11 13% .65 .86 Mastery

Laura 14 18% 1.17 .56 Instructional

Allie 15 23% 2.14 .8 Mastery

Glen 13 46% 1.08 .02 Frustration

performance (average gain of 14 words) and an effect size of 1.17, resulting in her consistently

reading at or above an instructional level throughout the intervention phase. During the same period

of time, Laura’s comprehension increased, reflecting an average rate of improvement of .56 wordscorrectly selected per week in assessed Maze passages (see Figure 3 and Table 2). Laura’s improved

comprehension became more stable after 6 weeks of fluency intervention.

Allie initially read an average of 66 WCPM across baseline sessions. During the 12 weeks

of intervention, she read an average of 81 WCPM, reflecting a 23% increase over her baseline

performance (average gain of 15 words) and an effect size of 2.14, resulting in her reading at a

mastery level across the last two consecutive weeks of intervention (111 and 103 WCPM). During the

same period of time, Allie’s comprehension increased, reflecting an average rate of improvement of

.8 words correctly selected per week in assessed Maze passages (see Figure 4 and Table 2). Sustained

improvements in comprehension became evident after just 4 weeks of fluency intervention.

Glen initially read an average of 28 WCPM across baseline sessions. During the 11 weeks of

intervention (due to absences), he read an average of 41 WCPM, reflecting a 46% increase over

his baseline performance (average gain of 13 words) and an effect size of 1.08; however, Glen was

continuing to read at a frustration level in fourth-grade materials. During the same period of time,

Glen’s comprehension remained consistently low, reflecting little to no rate of improvement ([ROI]

= .02 words correctly selected per week in assessed Maze passages; see Figure 5 and Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The current study used evidence-based instructional components to affect the reading fluency

of 5 fourth-grade students across a total of 15 weeks and to assess generalized improvements in

comprehension during the same time period. Given Markell and Deno’s (1997) assertion that large

differences in reading aloud are necessary before changes in reading comprehension can be demon-

strated, the current study used a brief intervention assessment to determine the essential components

necessary to increase participants’ reading fluency. During the 12 weeks that repeated practice with

performance feedback and error correction were implemented, participants demonstrated an average

increase of 25% over baseline levels of performance, representing an average gain of 15 words

from baseline to intervention and an average effect size of 1.25. Four of the five participants also

demonstrated meaningful gains in comprehension at a rate exceeding the realistic growth rate for

fourth-grade students (ROI = .39; Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993). Whereas

Markell and Deno (1997) had asserted that a minimum gain of 15–20 words was necessary to

predict changes in comprehension, only two of the four students met this minimum criterion (Ethan

and Allie; see Table 2). Rather, the quality of change appeared to be more meaningful in reflecting

change in comprehension. The four students who demonstrated growth in comprehension had grown

in reading fluency such that they were reading at an instructional or mastery level. Glen, despite





having increased his reading fluency by 46%, was continuing to read at a frustration level. Thus,

these results support Markell and Deno’s recommended use of 90 WCPM as a minimum fluency

criterion for literal comprehension. Whereas this criterion may not be sufficient for comprehension, it

provides a guideline for defining what is “necessary” for comprehension in setting goals for fluency.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current study adds to the literature regarding changes in reading comprehension affected

by changes in reading fluency at the individual level. Several limitations should be noted, however.

First, the use of empirical case designs allowed us to describe the changes in both measures over

time, but we were not able to demonstrate a functional relationship between our implementation of

the intervention components (repeated practice, error correction, and performance feedback) and the

resulting change in reading fluency. Using an experimental case design, such as a multiple baseline

design across participants, would have allowed us to draw a cause–effect relationship. Given the

limited time available, using a multiple baseline design across five participants was not possible.

Future researchers may use this design to demonstrate experimental control.

A second limitation is the lack of maintenance and follow-up data across both measures.

Although changes in reading fluency and comprehension appeared to coincide in four of the five

participants, without continued follow-up we do not know if these gains were maintained over time.

Future researchers should continue to collect data after the intervention has been discontinued to

determine if these gains are maintained over time.

Finally, to assess generalized gains in reading comprehension relative to a fluency intervention,

only an intervention for reading fluency was implemented. This is not to stay that the participants

were not also receiving comprehension strategies within their classroom instruction during the

same time that the fluency intervention was applied. The comprehension strategies, however, would

have occurred across the baseline conditions as well. To determine the relative gain of addingcomprehension strategies to the fluency intervention, an additional phase would have been required.

Future researchers may consider adding comprehension strategies after demonstrating an increase

in fluency and generalized gains in comprehension to determine the added benefit.

Implications for Practice

Students referred for school psychology services most often display reading skill deficits

(Reschly, 2008). As recent data attest, a significant number of fourth-grade students (i.e., 37%)

are performing below the basic level (National Center for Education Statistics et al., 2001), a level

at which they are unable to read and to comprehend grade-level material. This lack of reading

proficiency predicts poor future outcomes for these students. As school psychologists work within

an RtI model to address the reading skill deficits of these at-risk students, the implementation

of reading fluency interventions is essential. Given our understanding of the relationship between

reading fluency and comprehension, we would expect that, as reading fluency increases, so too

would reading comprehension (Reschly et al., 2009). Data from this study add support to the

assertion that reading fluency is necessary yet not sufficient for comprehension. The quality of

reading fluency may be minimally defined in terms of Fuchs and Deno’s instructional-level criteria

in grade-level materials. Even when large gains are made in fluency, these gains may not be sufficient

for comprehension in grade-level materials if not minimally reflecting an instructional level.

As school psychologists work to address and operationally define students’ reading deficits,

they may find that whereas the referred concern is for comprehension, the student’s reading fluency

is not minimally sufficient to expect gains in comprehension. Given the limited instructional time

available for supplemental interventions in the classroom, a reading fluency intervention may be





both an effective and efficient method to achieve gains in fluency and comprehension if fluency is

increased to an instructional level in grade-level materials. Thus, assessment of fluency is essential

to addressing comprehension deficits given the relationship between the two (Baker, Gersten, &

Grossen, 2002). As well, the instructional level criteria may be an especially useful standard for goal

setting with regard to the fluency intervention, with instructional level reflecting a minimum leveland mastery level reflecting an optimal level of fluency achieved.

REFERENCES

Bain, S. K., & Garlock, J. W. (1992). Cross-validation of criterion-related validity for CBM reading passages. Assessmentfor Effective Intervention, 17, 202–208.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. (2002). Interventions for students with reading comprehension problems. In A. Thomas& J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-IV (pp. 731 – 754). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Brown-Chidsey, R., Davis, L., & Maya, C. (2003). Sources of variance in curriculum-based measures of silent reading.Psychology in the Schools, 40, 363–377.

Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice.New York: Guilford.

Campbell, K. U. (2005). Great leaps reading program (5th ed.). Gainesville, FL: Diarmuid.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219 – 232.

Deno, S. L., Espin, C. A., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Evaluation strategies for preventing and remediating basic skill deficits. InM. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive andremedial approaches (pp. 213 – 242). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for ExceptionalChildren.

Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36 – 45.

Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513– 516, 575– 578.

Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58,232–243.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review,21, 45 – 59.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: Howmuch growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27 – 48.

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

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial andSpecial Education, 9(2), 20 – 28.

Howe, K. B., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). Standard reading assessment passages (RAPs) for use in general outcome measurement:A manual describing development and technical features. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.

Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and Maze.

Exceptional Children, 59, 421–432.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology,6, 293–323.

Markell, M. A., & Deno, S. L. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 233 – 250.

Martson, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why doit. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18 – 78). New York: Guilford.

Mehrens, W. A., & Clarizio, H. F. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement: Conceptual and psychometric considerations.Psychology in the Schools, 20, 241–254.

National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, & U.S. Department of Education.(2001). The nation’s report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000 (NCES Publication No. 2001-499). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teach-ing children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implicationsfor reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184– 202.





Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher,58, 510–519.

Reschly, A. L., Busch, T. W., Betts, J., Deno, S. L., & Long, J. D. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement oral reading asan indicator of reading achievement: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of School Psychology, 47,427–469.

Reschly, D. J. (2008). School psychology paradigm shift and beyond. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices inschool psychology (5th ed., pp. 3 – 17). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Shernoff, E. S., Kratochwill, T. R., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: An illustrationof task force coding criteria using single-participant research design. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 390 – 422.

Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W. D., & Collins, V. L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral readingfluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459 – 479.

Shinn, M. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2002a). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-basedmeasurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc.

Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2002b). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading maze for usein general outcome measurement. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc.

Skinner, C. H. (2004). Single-subject designs: Procedures that allow school psychologists to contribute to the intervention

evaluation and validation process. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(2), 1 – 10.Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education,25, 252–261.

Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-basedmeasurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85 – 120.

Witt, J. C., Daly, E. J. III, & Noell, G. H. (2000). Functional assessments: A step-by-step guide to solving academic andbehavior problems. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Yell, M. L. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 18, 99 – 112.


Documents

Neddenriep, C., Fritz, A., & Carrier, M. (2011)