Training Parents as Effective Literacy Tutors: Increasing the Procedural Integrity of Tutoring

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20

Training Parents as Effective LiteracyTutors: Increasing the ProceduralIntegrity of TutoringLaura Baylot Casey a & Robert Williamson ba The University of Memphisb Bowling Green State UniversityPublished online: 08 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Laura Baylot Casey & Robert Williamson (2011) Training Parents as EffectiveLiteracy Tutors: Increasing the Procedural Integrity of Tutoring, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearning, 19:3, 257-276, DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2011.597118

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.597118

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13611267.2011.597118

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.597118

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Training Parents as Effective Literacy Tutors: Increasing theProcedural Integrity of Tutoring

Laura Baylot CaseyThe University of Memphis

Robert WilliamsonBowling Green State University

We trained parents to tutor their child through implementing a repeatedreading procedure designed to increase oral reading fluency. Our studywas conducted over a two-week winter break at the homes of the parentand child. Baseline data for each child were collected using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to determine an instructional reading levelprior to the tutoring session. Following baseline, we trained parents astutors to implement all aspects of the reading procedure includingadministering, scoring, and recording data. All sessions were audiorecorded to assist with the data collection, scoring, treatment integrity,and interobserver agreement (IOA). According to results from our study,parent tutors were able to accurately score the reading probes and imple-ment the repeated reading procedure with a high level of treatment fidel-ity following the training. In addition, parents were satisfied with thetutoring experience and the reading fluency for all children increased atthe completion of the tutoring sessions.

Keywords: parents, tutors, fluency, treatment fidelity

Wherry (2007) stated that, “Parents know far more about their children thanany school ever will and they have far more ‘learning time’ with their chil-dren than the school does” (p. 8). The important role that parents play isalso recognized by current legal mandates such as No Child Left Behind(NCLB, 2001). NCLB outlined the need to include parents in the educationof their children and as a result developed a definition for parental involve-ment. The law defines parental involvement as:

Laura Baylot Casey, Special Education, The University of Memphis; Robert Williamson,School of Intervention Services, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Baylot Casey,Special Education, The University of Memphis, 405 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA.Email: [email protected]

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in LearningAquatic InsectsVol. 19, No. 3, August 2011, 257–276

ISSN 1361-1267 print/ISSN 1469-9745 online� 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13611267.2011.597118http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

. . . the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communi-cation involving student academic learning and other school activities includ-ing assisting their child’s learning and being actively involved in their child’seducation at school. (Section 9101(32), Elementary and Secondary EducationAct (ESEA))

In addition, over four decades ago, seminal work cited in the ColemanReport (1966) found that parent involvement is more critical to a child’seducational success than either the student’s teachers or the financialresources allocated to the school. Specifically, Coleman, Campbell, Hobston,McPartland, Mood, Weinfeld, and York (1966) stated: “School resourceshad surprisingly little effect on educational outcomes once family back-ground was controlled” (p. 6). Parental influence toward education occurs inany related pursuit, ranging from extracurricular activities such as attendingpractices or rehearsals (Denton & West, 2002) to simply providing supportand being generally involved in children’s learning (Lin, 2003).

For all parent involvement, regardless of the activity, the greater theinvolvement, the more positive effects on school performance and academicachievement for the child. Thus, one could deduce that parent tutoringwould be paramount to the child’s academic career by providing moreopportunities to enhance academics, increase learning time, and extend thelearning environment beyond the confines of the school grounds or the aca-demic calendar (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Due to the fact that literacyis the foundation for success across all academic areas and a documentedarea of weakness with the National Association of Educational Progress(NAEP) reporting that 67% of the 191,000 students tested in the fourthgrade scored at or below basic level and only 33% were considered profi-cient readers (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007), teaching parents to tutor usingan evidence-based reading intervention is a solid starting point for trainingparents as tutors.

Parents as Literacy Tutors

Much research has been conducted in the area of parental tutoring such asparents reading to their children, and, undoubtedly, parents play an importantrole in the success of early literacy (Goldenberg, 1989; Sénéchal & LeFevre,2002; Zuckerman & Khandekar, 2010). In fact, parents’ effects on readingachievement are consistently documented in educational research (Golden-berg, 1989), and the benefits of parental tutoring have been the focus ofresearch for decades (Christenson, Hurley, Sheridan, & Fenstermacher,1997). However, the quality and type of reading by the parent inherently con-tribute to the impact that the parent has on the child’s abilities. Sénéchal,Lefevre, Thomas, and Daley (1998) suggested children are exposed to twotypes of home literacy experiences: informal and formal. They defined infor-mal reading as reading by the parent where the focus is more on the message

258 BAYLOT CASEY AND WILLIAMSON

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

contained in the story. Formal reading was defined as parental reading wherethe focus is on the actual words. Though the focus of the 1998 study was onmultiple relationships between home literacy experiences and child outcomes,a primary finding was that simple exposure to storybooks through informalreading failed to predict emergent literacy skills. Thus, Sénéchal, Lefevre,Thomas, and Daley concluded that informal reading between parent and childmay not be sufficient to support emergent literacy skills.

However, as noted by Gortmaker, Daly, McCurdy, Persampieri, and Her-genrader (2007), the child can benefit only if the parents are provided withappropriate reading tutoring skills and guided in the implementation of thosetechniques. Therefore, the researcher, teacher, or specialist must train theparent until high treatment fidelity is demonstrated and the parent is compe-tent to tutor the child on the academic endeavor.

Direct Teaching of Parents

Now the question is: “Can parents tutor their child with high enough levelsof treatment integrity so that a causal relationship between the academicgains made and the parent as the tutor can be stated with confidence?” Thisquestion is not novel. In a 2005 meta-analysis of parent involvement usingevidence-based interventions targeting a change in academic performance(e.g., reading and mathematics) for school-aged children, parent involvementin the tutoring was not conclusively shown to directly cause any resultingsuccess despite documented success in the student’s academic skills (Fishel& Ramirez, 2005). In other words, the children made gains in reading, butthe direct link back to the actual role that the parent played during the tutor-ing session was not clear. These authors suggested and encouraged futureresearch to approach the investigation of parent involvement in schools withincreased scientific rigor to better demonstrate the casual relationshipbetween parents serving as tutors and the increase in the student’s academicgains (Fishel & Ramirez, 2005). One way to increase the scientific rigor ofthe studies is to ensure parents are adequately trained as tutors prior toimplementing the intervention with their child.

Researchers have suggested that the most effective parent training toestablish parents as tutors consists of an explicit parent training component,highly structured routines, direct instruction, modeling, guided practice, rein-forcement, and corrective feedback (Noell, Freeland, Witt, & Gansle, 2001;Resetar, Noell, & Pellegrin, 2006; Toomey, 1993). In addition, to ensure sci-entific rigor, three necessary components are needed to make valid infer-ences from the tutoring sessions conducted with parents: (a) treatmentintegrity, (b) social validity or treatment acceptability, and (c) generalizationand maintenance of skill acquisition following the completion of the ses-sions. Each component is essential to the overall success of the interventionand is also essential for showing a cause and effect between the parent tutor

TRAINING PARENTS AS LITERACY TUTORS 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

and the success of the intervention. However, obtaining a high level oftreatment integrity is at the crux of the causal relationship. According toLane, Beebe-Frankenberger, Lambros, and Pierson (2001), “Failure to imple-ment an intervention as designed may comprise intervention outcomes, thus,threatening the internal and external validity of a study” (p. 371). In a meta-analysis examining articles that mentioned evaluating treatment integrity andreporting data, Gresham, MacMillian, Beebe-Frankenberger, and Bocian(2000) found of the 150 studies reviewed in the top journal for appliedbehavioral interventions, 40% mentioned treatment integrity with 25%reporting the data collected on treatment integrity. These authors also foundthat of 479 articles published in leading journals devoted to learning disabil-ities that 49.2% mentioned evaluating treatment integrity and only 18.5%reported the level of treatment integrity. These data indicated that fewer thanhalf of the researchers addressed the importance of treatment integrity andeven fewer reported any data collected on the integrity to which the inter-vention was implemented during the tutoring session.

Resetar et al. (2006) sought to increase treatment integrity of parentalimplementation of reading interventions following a didactic training withthe above-mentioned structure and found an increase in levels of proceduraltreatment integrity with a mean of 82% and a treatment integrity for follow-ing the step-by-step directions of non-related or non-functional items (e.g.,instructing the parent to start the tape recorder and to say the date of theintervention) of 100% (Sheridan, Swanger-Gagné, Welch, Kwon, & Gar-bacz, 2009). Though an average of 82% is good, this score is indicative ofan intervention implementation that was not carried out as planned and wasonly partially implemented by some parents who did not reach the 82%mark. In Resetar et al.’s (2006) study, the use of structure and individualdirect parent training alone did not yield the results necessary to draw ade-quate conclusions about the direct relationship between the tutoring sessionand the change in student behavior.

Gortmaker et al. (2007) also sought to increase parental treatment integ-rity during the intervention phase, or parent tutoring sessions, of readinginterventions by adding a criterion level of 100% that parents had to reachbefore the training session with the researchers ceased. This criterion was anadded component to the use of direct and systematic training. However, theaddition of the criterion, by itself, did not yield the results these researchershad hoped for in terms of treatment integrity during the intervention phasewith a mean integrity score of 89% (range, 60-100%). Gortmaker et al.’s(2007) procedural section of the research did not include specific statementsconcerning whether they counted treatment integrity as the parent’s abilityto follow only the procedural steps related to directly implementing theintervention or all items including the non-functional items such as writingname and date on paper. Thus, in our current study, similar to Resetar et al.(2006), the treatment integrity form only contained functional items related


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

to the specific tutoring procedure that the parents were to implement. Stepssuch as turning on the tape recorder and saying date or writing the name ofthe child on the paper were not included in the count as these steps are notcrucial to the success of the intervention and it is well documented in previ-ous research that parents do these non-functional steps with 100% agreement(Resetar et al., 2006).

Parent education is crucial and directly training the parent on the desiredevidence-based intervention until high treatment fidelity is met is critical tothe success of the tutoring sessions. To confirm that the outcomes of thetreatment are attributable to the tutor, the intervention must be carried out asplanned. Without 100% treatment integrity, the confidence in the interven-tion being solely responsible for change is sacrificed. Thus, our currentstudy was designed to improve procedural treatment integrity by combiningelements from Resetar et al.’s (2006) and Gortmaker et al.’s (2007) research;however, we primarily focused on parent-related target behaviors during thetutoring session and not the student variables.

Purpose of the Study

Because the extant literature indicated that when parents tutor their childrenusing structured interventions to increase fluency that academic gains aremade, our current study was designed specifically to address the noted gapin the research by increasing scientific rigor to better establish a causal linkbetween the parent as the tutor and the reading gains made by the child(Fishel & Ramirez, 2005). The primary hypothesis was that if parental treat-ment integrity levels approximate 100% during the tutoring session, then thegains made by the child will be substantial and enough evidence will existto state the gains were a direct result of the intervention being carried outby the parents serving as the tutor. In order to investigate this hypothesis,three primary aims were indentified.

The first aim was to increase parental treatment integrity during the tutor-ing session by adding an additional role-play session to the training compo-nent with a set criterion level of 100% procedural treatment integrityneeding to be met prior to conducting the tutoring session at home. With alevel as high as 100%, the researchers can be confident that the interventionitself as conducted by the parent tutor is responsible for the observedchanges in the dependent variable (Daly, Murdoch, Lillenstein, Webber, &Lentz, 2002; Fiala & Sheridan, 2003; Noell et al., 2001). Thus, this aim wasbased on the notion that without high levels of treatment integrity, theresults cannot be attributed to the intervention alone exclusive of the influ-ence of an outside variable. The second aim of our study was to have a highlevel of social validity or treatment acceptability. Acceptability of the inter-vention is a subcomponent of social validity termed treatment acceptability.Treatment acceptability is defined as the extent to which treatment is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

considered reasonable, justified, and fair to consumers, teachers, and caretak-ers (Lyst, Gabriel, O’Shaughnessy, Meyers, & Meyers, 2005). Acceptabilityis an important measure because the more acceptable an intervention is, themore likely the intervention will be carried out correctly; thereby, linkingacceptability directly to treatment integrity (Lane et al., 2001).

The third aim was to evaluate whether each child’s number of words cor-rect per minute (WCPM) during the intervention would generalize back tothe school setting following at home tutoring sessions conducted by the par-ent. Previous researchers have indicated that one of the weaknesses of parenttutoring interventions conducted at home is the lack of generalized improve-ments beyond the training condition (i.e., the individual’s house; Gortmakeret al., 2007). The ability to generalize information from the instructional set-ting to a non-trained setting is habilitative for the struggling reader as he orshe will now have access to additional reinforcers in the classroom (Cooper,Heron, & Heward, 2007). To extend the literature, we chose to have the par-ents implement the tutoring session during a break from academic instruc-tion. This element of the research adds to previous research that supportsthe need to conduct studies during a break from academic classroom instruc-tion because declines and academic losses have been documented overschool holidays (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2001; Gortmaker et al.,2007; Schacter, 2003).

In summary, the primary purposes of this research were to systematicallyevaluate three main components necessary to produce maximum benefit toall parties involved in a parent tutoring intervention and to ensure that acausal relationship between the parent serving as the tutor and the child’sacademic gains could be stated. The components were (a) treatment integ-rity, (b) social validity, and (c) generalization and maintenance of skill fol-lowing the intervention (Lane et al., 2001).

Method

Participants

Participants in the study were mothers and their children attending a ruralschool district in the southeastern United States. All six of the parent andchild dyads were living in dual parent homes at the time of the study. Six orfewer participants are consistent with other literature in the area of parenttraining and literacy (Gortmaker et al., 2007; Resetar et al., 2006). The par-ticipants included the mothers of one second grade male (Kellen), one thirdgrade female (Leslie Beth), one third grade male (Matt), two fourth grademales (Bart and Kevin), and one fourth grade female (Tammy). All namesare pseudonyms. Five of the participating mothers were the biologicalmothers and one was a stepmother. All participating caretakers were in theirmid- thirties to forties and all worked outside of the home at the time of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

intervention. The average age of the parent participant was 37 with a rangeof 33–45 years of age. The median household salary was $95,000 with arange of $79,000–120,000. Each parent participant had at least a high schooldiploma. Four had a bachelor’s degree and one had a master’s degree. Noneof the participating parents had received any formal training on readinginterventions at the time of the study. None of the parents had a degree ineducation; however, one of them had worked as a paraprofessional in aclassroom for students with moderate to severe disabilities and one hadworked in a mother’s day out program at the school.

Criteria for student inclusion in the study consisted of the child meetingthe following criteria: (a) documented struggles in reading as evidenced bybelow average classroom performance on two consecutive progress reports;(b) not meeting grade level words read correctly per minute as measured byCBM-ORF probes (Fuchs & Deno, 1982), thereby being a struggling readerin need of tutoring; (c) no documented learning disability; and (d) parentavailability to perform tutoring as needed to meet the requirements of thestudy.

Participation was voluntary and parent consent and child assent wasobtained from each participant prior to beginning the study. Obtaining con-sent consisted of each dyad understanding that they could withdraw fromthe study at any time and that participation was not linked to the student’sreceiving extra points or earning a higher grade in his or her classroom.

Setting

Initial reading placement for each child took place at the school and wasconducted by the first author using standard CBM-ORF protocol for gradelevel placement. Parent trainings took place in an empty classroom onschool grounds one week prior to the two-week winter break. The interven-tion component of the study took place at each child’s home with the fol-low-up data collection to ensure generalization occurring at the school uponreturn from the winter break. A follow-up generalization session was con-ducted by the primary researcher and was used as a gauge to evaluatewhether trainings conducted by the parents yielded progress that would gen-eralize back to the school setting. All generalization probes were conductedone week after the return from winter break at the school.

Materials

During baseline data collection and intervention the following materialswere used: (a) a pen or pencil, (b) stopwatch to time one minute, (c) readingpassages at instructional level (AIMSWeb, 2008), (d) instructor copies ofthe readings, (e) tape recorder, (f) blank tapes, and (g) a binder with alltraining materials included. During the parent training the parents wereprovided with all of the above materials to use during the course of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

two- week break. The provision of instructor copies of all reading passagesallowed the child to have a copy to read from and the parent to have a sepa-rate yet identical copy to record words read and mistakes made during theone-minute reading. Finally, the taped recordings were utilized for evaluat-ing treatment integrity as well as IOA between the researchers and the datacollected and turned in by the parents.

Target Behaviors

The target behaviors were: (a) treatment integrity of the parent’s ability toimplement the tutoring procedure as trained and identified on the script pro-vided to them using only items that are directly related to the intervention,(b) acceptability of the intervention, (c) interobserver agreement (IOA)between each parent and the researcher in terms of parents’ ability to scoreWCPM, and (d) the effects on the student data as measured by WCPM bythe student. WCPM was used to assess gains made by the student through-out the intervention and to assess the generalization and maintenance ofskills following the intervention.

Treatment integrity. Treatment integrity has been defined as the “extentto which the independent variable is carried out as planned” (Cooper et al.,2007, p. 235). Treatment integrity for the purposes of this study is definedas the parents’ ability to follow the script or step-by-step instructions pro-vided during the trainings. Thus, items not directly related to implementingthe intervention were not included. This exclusion of non-functional itemswas based on previous researchers who found that parents were consistentlysuccessful with 100% integrity in following these non-functional steps andthat these items had no bearing on the success of the intervention (Resetaret al., 2006). Treatment integrity in terms of following directions to itemsthat are not functional was assessed via audiotape, but was not considered aprimary target behavior.

Treatment acceptability. Treatment acceptability is a sub-component ofsocial validity and refers to the extent to which the treatment is consideredreasonable, justified, and fair to consumers (e.g., caregivers, teachers, andchildren) (Lyst, 2005 p. 198).

Interobserver agreement (IOA). This measurement reflects the degree towhich “two independent observers report the same values after measuringthe same events” (Cooper, 2007, p. 113). IOA was measured by theresearcher independently scoring the median passage for each child indepen-dent of the parent using the audiotape as well as the data collection sheet.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Words correct per minute (WCPM). Words correct per minute wasdefined as the total number of words read correctly in the one minute timedperiod. A word was counted as correct if it was read aloud and pronouncedcorrectly within three seconds. Therefore, if more than three seconds passedbefore the word was attempted, the word was not to be scored as correctand the word was counted as an error. Other types of errors that werereviewed with the parents included: mispronunciations, omissions, and sub-stitutions (Shapiro, 2004). Parents were simply instructed to mark errors andnot to include errors in the total word count, but were not trained on a spe-cific type of error correction technique. When errors occurred, the parentsmarked the error on the examiner copy and the child continued readingwithout feedback on errors unless there was a hesitation of longer than threeseconds. For delays longer than three seconds, the parent would then pro-vide the word to the child. For the purposes of this study and the focusbeing on fidelity of treatment implementation, types of errors were not ana-lyzed.

Procedure

Baseline. During baseline, initial data were collected using CBM-ORF sothat an instructional grade level could be obtained for each child participat-ing in the study (Resetar et al. 2006). All passages used in baseline andintervention were from the reading assessment passages at the AIMSwebCurriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) online site (AIMSWeb, 2008). Toobtain an instructional level, the child’s score was compared to the norma-tive data outlined by Fuchs and Deno (1982). This method of collectingbaseline data prior to the intervention implemented by the parent was a rep-lication of Resetar et al. (2006). Throughout this study, parents wereinstructed to only record the median score for each session. Having the par-ent only record the median score reduced the data recording requirement onthe parent. The highest score, lowest score, first, or last score could havebeen selected as possible scores to be recorded; however, the median scorewas selected based on limitations and suggestions provided from previousresearch. For example, when reporting WCPM during an intervention, someresearchers utilized the first reading to ensure that a practice effect had nottaken place. Other researchers used the final effort regarding the three read-ings so that the highest gains made by the participant were reflected (Eckert,Ardoin, Daly, & Martens, 2002). Both of these selections, using the firstand the last reading, had limitations that we sought to control for in theabsence of conducting weekly generalization probes due to the interventionsbeing conducted at the participants’ homes.

For example, using the final reading was not a good indication of general-ized gains, but rather in-session gains only; and using the first reading wasmore an indication of generalized gains, but was viewed as not the best


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

indicator of within-session gains. Furthermore, because of the nature of theintervention being conducted over winter break, we did not visit the homeas Gortmaker et al. (2007) did and the children were not in the school build-ing (Resetar et al., 2006) so that we could obtain generalization probes onnovel passages during the intervention phase. Thus, we were not able toconduct generalization probes until after the commencement of the study.Because generalization probes could not be conducted during the interven-tion and because of the above-mentioned limitations with initial and endingreadings during a repeated reading session along with the potential benefitof using the median score, the median score was selected for our study.

Parent training. The training began by directly teaching oral RepeatedReading to the parents (Samuels, 1979). The NRP meta-analysis concludedthat re-reading text using oral repeated reading was the best supportedapproach to improving fluency (National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development, 2000) and thus was utilized during the interventionportion of our study. Though a repeated reading session may be conductedin several different ways, in terms of the number of readings, the NRP con-cluded that all methods, regarding the number of readings by the child, hadmerit. Therrien (2004) found that three to four readings were optimal andthat more than three or four readings did not result in significantly moregains. Therefore, our study’s protocol consisted of the participant readingthe same passage three times. The direct instructions for implementing theoral repeated reading sessions were based on Wright’s (1992) directions foradministering CBM probes in oral reading fluency. For the purposes of ourstudy, the directions were broken down into six discrete steps. The first stepwas to sit with the student in a quiet location with few distractions. Second,the parent was asked to select a 100-word passage from the material pro-vided to them at the training. Next, the parent was to instruct the student tobegin reading by saying:

When I say, “start,” begin reading aloud at the top of this page. Read acrossthe page from left to right. Try to read each word. If you come to a word youdon’t know, I’ll tell it to you. Be sure to do your best reading. Are there anyquestions? [Pause] “Start.”

Fourth, the parent needed to time for one minute beginning the stopwatchwhen the child says the first word. Further instructions for this step includedthat if the student does not say the initial word within three seconds, to saythe word for them then start the stopwatch and time for one minute. Thefifth step was to read along in the text as the child reads and record anyerrors by marking a slash (/) through the incorrectly read word on theirexaminer copy. The parent was also reminded that if the student hesitatedfor three seconds on any word, provide the word and mark it as an error.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

The final step was to say “Stop” and mark the student’s concluding place inthe text with a bracket (]) on the examiner copy at the conclusion of oneminute. These discrete steps were provided to the parent in the form of achecklist prior to beginning the intervention and served as the treatmentintegrity protocol.

Following the direct instruction on correct implementation, we role-playedreading session scenarios with one playing the role of the child and oneplaying the role of the parent. This initial role-play served as a model forsetting up the environment, getting all materials ready, and implementingthe script from start to finish. Following the demonstration by the research-ers, each parent practiced with a researcher who was playing the role of thechild. During this role-play, feedback was provided at the end of eachreading. An additional role-play took place following the parent-researcherrole-play and consisted of one parent playing the role of the child and oneplaying herself. This additional role-play session is an extension of the Res-etar et al. (2006) and Gortmaker et al. (2007). During this role-play withparents working with each other, one researcher provided direct instructionsto the parents’ playing themselves, the interventionist, by using verbal rein-forcement along with corrective feedback to ensure that the parents under-stood how to set up for the session, tutor the student using the intervention,and utilize the treatment integrity checklist with the steps outlined in numer-ical order. The parent maintained the role of tutor until 100% proceduralimplementation integrity. Following the obtainment of 100%, the parentsswitched roles. We decided to have the parents reach 100% treatment integ-rity prior to conducting the tutoring session at home to increase the proba-bility of a high level of fidelity during the two-week intervention.

In addition, parents were provided written instructions on how to scorethe WCPM and how to locate the child’s current reading grade level usingacademic benchmarks for reading (Fuchs & Deno, 1982). Parents were alsogiven written instructions on how to identify and mark errors that occurredduring the readings. Errors were not included in the total WCPM (Shapiro,2004). Before the training was complete, parents were encouraged to askany questions related to implementation and/or scoring, given all trainingmaterials needed in a binder, provided with a tape recorder and severalblank tapes, and instructed to tape record all sessions from start to finish byfirst saying the date before any instructions were given.

Treatment acceptability. Following the parent tutoring intervention por-tion, each parent met separately to discuss the results from the interventionand generalization in terms of their child’s WCPM gains. At this time, theparents completed a rating scale to assess their experience with the tutoringsessions. Based on recommendations from previous literature, a rating scalewas used to assess the sessions (Gresham & Lopez, 1996). The Intervention


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Rating Profile-15 (IRP-15; Witt & Martens, 1983) was selected. The IRP-15was modified to address the reading intervention that was targeted duringthe tutoring as it was originally designed for teachers and behavior prob-lems. This modification is based on the extant research as the IRP-15 wasalso modified in Resetar et al. (2006).

Generalization. Following the completion of the tutoring sessions, weconducted generalization probes at the school. These data were collected toassess how well the results generalized from the home, instructional setting,with the parent as tutor back to the school setting.

Design and Data Collection

An A/B single subject design was implemented with a generalization phasefollowing the intervention. Each child’s baseline instructional grade levelwas obtained by the researcher prior to intervention based on Resetar et al.(2006). During intervention, the parents tutored their child using the oralrepeated reading procedure and recorded the WCPM. Each week consistedof three tutoring sessions.

The sessions conducted by the parent were recorded via audio tape fortreatment integrity purposes and IOA. In addition, the data collected by theparent were turned into the researchers on a data collection sheet at the endof the two-week period. We conducted follow-up probes at school to ensurethat the gains acquired at home generalized back to the school setting.

Results

Treatment Integrity

Treatment integrity was assessed using a script in the form of checklist thatdescribed the instructions for implementing the tutoring session. The scriptcontained six items that the parent was to check off upon completion. Allsix items included were objective and were considered functional or directlyrelated to the fidelity of the oral repeated reading intervention and did notinclude instructions such as place name on paper or place items in folder toreturn to researcher (Sheridan et al., 2009). For each reading session con-ducted at home, the parents tape recorded the oral readings beginning withthe instructions they provided through the use of audiotapes. The primaryresearcher listened to each of the audiotapes to assess treatment integrity ofthe implementation for each session. Treatment integrity averaged 97%across all parent participants (range, 83–100%) for the parent’s ability tocorrectly implement the procedure. Each parent scored at or above 92%across all sessions with some sessions yielding 100% (see Table 1).Treatment integrity in terms of following directions to items that are non-functional, such as turning on the tape recorder and stating the date


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

before each session, was found to be 100% evidenced by the audio taperecordings.

Treatment Acceptability

Using the IRP-15, the level of acceptability was measured. The scale rangedfrom 1 to 6. A score of 1 indicated strongly disagree and a score of 6 indi-cated strongly agree. Bart’s mother gave a high rating of 5.2. Kellen’smother rated the tutoring sessions with a 5.7. Kevin’s mother ranked theexperience a 4.9. Leslie Beth’s mother indicated much satisfaction with ascore of 5.4. Matt’s mother ranked the sessions high with a 5.4. Lastly,Tammy’s mom revealed high levels of acceptability with a rank of 5.7.However, across the group the ratings for item 4 (Most parents would findthis tutoring procedure suitable), item 13 (I liked the procedures used duringthe tutoring sessions) and item 14 (Tutoring was a good way to handle thereading concern) were all scored a 6.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

Thirty-three percent (all median passages) for each child across all sessionswere scored for IOA by the first researcher. The data collection sheet in con-junction with the audiotape was utilized for IOA scoring purposes. Totalcount IOA was the method select for calculating the level of agreement. Theformula for calculating total count IOA was the smaller count divided bythe larger count. The quotient was then multiplied by 100. IOA was 88%across all parent participants (range 67–100%) for the parents’ ability toscore the WCPM during the intervention (Cooper et al., 2007).

Words Correct per Minute

Data were reported back to the researchers by the parents at the end of thestudy in the form of a permanent product (data collection form) and onaudiotape. The data were analyzed daily using WCPM as reported by theparents and via listening to the audiotapes. Even though the median passage

Table 1Treatment Integrity Across Participants Across Sessions

Parent Participants

Sessions

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Bart’s 92 94 97 97 100 100 96%Kellen’s 94 92 100 100 97 97 96%Kevin’s 94 97 100 100 100 97 98%Matt’s 97 100 100 100 100 97 99%Leslie Beth’s 92 97 97 100 100 100 97%Tammy’s 97 97 92 97 100 97 96%

Note. ⁄Data are reported as means. All passages are scored within each session. The range foreach session for each participant was 83–100%.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

was the only passage parents were required to record on the data collectionsheet, all examiner copies were returned so that the researcher could ensurethat the median score was actually the one the parents selected. Parentsselected the correct passage as the median 100% of the time. The resultsrelated to WCPM demonstrated direct benefit to the child. Direct benefitwas evident as all of the children showed increases in the number of WCPMfrom baseline probes to generalization probes (see Figure 1).

Bart, a fourth grader, read 73 WCPM in baseline followed by a variableincreasing trend with a slight drop toward the end of intervention averaging115 WCPM and maintained gains with 96 WCPM at the time of generaliza-tion. Thus, Bart gained 67 words. Kellen, a second grader, read 40 WCPMin baseline with steady upward trend averaging 67.5 words during interven-tion and 80 during the generalization phase. Kellen’s improvements repre-sented a total gain of 40 words. A fourth grader, Kevin, scored 88 WCPMduring baseline with an average intervention score of 90. Thus, had steadyupward trend with a follow-up score continuing the upward trend of 110.During baseline, Leslie Beth read 64 WCPM and averaged 107 words dur-ing intervention. Leslie Beth’s data were variable with highs and lows occur-ring prior to the steady upward trend. At generalization, her score was 103WCPM. Leslie Beth increased by 39 words overall. Matt, a third grader,scored 52 WCPM in baseline with an average score of 101 during interven-tion; a generalization score of 101 and a net gain of 49. Matt’s dataremained stable following the initial increase from baseline. Lastly, Tammy,another fourth grader, received an 86 in baseline and averaged 112 duringthe intervention with a variable, increasing trend from baseline. This gainwas maintained at follow-up with a score of 113.

Figure 1. Individual gains from baseline to generalization.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion

Parents were directly taught how to tutor their child using an empiricallyresearched reading strategy, oral repeated reading. These oral repeatedreading sessions were conducted over the school’s winter break. The pur-pose was to train the parent to serve as the tutor in an oral repeatedreading procedure with the primary target behaviors being parent variablessuch as treatment integrity, acceptability, and IOA and the primary aimbeing to demonstrate a direct relationship between the academic gainsmade by the child and the implementation of the intervention by the par-ent serving as the tutor. Our study contributes to previous research ontraining parents to tutor their children by adding an additional role-playsession with a pre-determined criterion level of 100% which they had tomeet prior to conducting the intervention. Once it was established thatthe parents were fluent in the procedures necessary by reaching 100%treatment integrity, the tutoring session began at the parents’ respectivehomes.

Parent success was evidenced by the treatment integrity scores for theparents averaging 97% across all parents across all tutoring sessions. Foreach parent, the percent correct increased following the first session andremained high with no parent scoring below 92% integrity level at anygiven time during the intervention. It should also be noted that each parenthad an average of 96% or better across all six sessions. This level of treat-ment integrity is higher than the two previous studies which primarilyguided this current work. The average treatment integrity across all parentsin the current study was 97%; whereas, the Resetar et al. study yielded 82%and the Gortmaker study yielded 89% during the parent tutoring sessions.With 97%, the academic benefits made by the child can be linked back tothe parent and it can be stated with much confidence that the success inWCPM was a result of the parents serving as tutors. IOA scores averaged88% across all sessions based on audio recordings evaluated by theresearchers. Basically, parents were not always accurate in their ability tocount errors correctly or use the three-second requirement prior to providingthe word when a pause occurred during the reading. For example, the mostcommon errors were not counting mispronunciations as an error, waitinglonger than three seconds following a pause, or not providing the full threeseconds and inserting the word too quickly. The errors were evident via thetaped recordings, and it should be noted that the time lapsed did not exceedfive seconds or occur quicker than 30 seconds on any of the readings. Thus,the average was three seconds with a range of 45 seconds to 4 seconds.Mispronunciations may have been too subjective as parents are often veryfamiliar with and overlook their children’s idiosyncratic pronunciations ofwords. Direct training on this aspect would have greatly increased the levelof agreement.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Positive results were not only evident in the parent’s ability to tutor withhigh procedural fidelity but also in the child’s reading fluency gains. Thedata for each child indicated success, as measured by an increase in WCPMthat was maintained at follow-up. The net gain across all children averaged30 WCPM with the range of 12 WCPM to 60 WCPM gained across theone-month period. These findings are slightly higher yet similar to previousstudies with mean WCPM increases of 22 (Resetar et al., 2006) and 29.4and 17.5 (Gortmaker et al., 2007).

Overall, the parent training and the parent serving as the tutor producedmeasureable gains in oral reading fluency that were generalized back to theschool setting. As stated in the Gortmaker et al. (2007) article, the general-ization following the parent training is increased when student reading isunder the control of the text, within the natural context of reading, and isaccompanied by effective tutoring conducted at home (i.e., high levels oftreatment fidelity during the tutoring). Thus, results from our study indicatedthat parents can be successful reading tutors with their child following astructured parent training with role-play, feedback, goals, and a set criterionrelated specifically to treatment integrity. The importance of teachingfunctional items related to the procedure and scoring of treatment integrityprotocol based on the implementation of functional steps and not the non-functional items is highlighted in this work. Lastly, given the documenteddecreases in academic performances during school breaks (Schacter, 2003),the researchers in the current study found that even a two-week tutoring ses-sion can be successful with generalizable gains back to the classroom.

Utilizing parents as academic tutors provides the school an alternative tohiring in multiple outside tutors or extending the academic day to provideremediation to the struggling students. Parents as tutors are a time- and cost-efficient method for assisting students at risk for academic failure; not onlyare parents efficient for the schools, they are effective at delivering instruc-tion and implementing evidence-based interventions following direct trainingon the procedures. We successfully answered the primary question with pre-liminary evidence of a causal link between the parent as the tutor and thegains made by the child. Though multiple successes have been documentedin the current research, limitations also exist.

Limitations

Results of our study must be viewed with the following limitations in mind.First, this study took place in one, southeastern school district with only sixchildren identified as struggling readers. Although the inclusion of only sixstudents was sufficient, given the single subject design of this study, and isconsistent with other literature in the area of parent training and literacy(Gortmaker et al., 2007; Resetar et al., 2006); with a small number ofparticipants the results may not be as generalizable as a larger participantsample would be. In addition, we only utilized oral repeated readings; the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

generalizations of these findings to other reading fluency interventions maybe limited as well.

In addition, multiple baseline approach was not implemented, thus sacri-ficing some internal validity of the findings. The choice to utilize an A/Bsingle subject design instead of a multiple baseline was to take advantage ofthe participating students’ break time from school and to begin treatmentimmediately following the last day of the semester. Additionally, we onlyincluded mothers as tutors and thus the results cannot be generalized toother caretakers. The mothers all had high school degrees and some hadpostsecondary degrees also decreasing the generalizability to other demo-graphic groups.

Future Research

Several areas of future research have been identified as a result of ourstudy. Results obtained from this preliminary work can be built upon formore research in the area of parent training particularly in the area ofincreasing treatment integrity. Future researchers might add a weekly orbiweekly face-to-face meeting with the parents during the sessions toaddress any concerns, answer any questions, and to make the parent awareof any integrity issues as they arise. In addition to the meetings with par-ents, meetings with children could be added to better monitor the child’sprogress. Another suggestion would be to train the parents on a specifictype of error correction technique to accompany the intervention and col-lect treatment integrity data on the implementation of the error correctionstrategy as well. Finally, similar research may wish to utilize an experimen-tal design in which similar groups of students could be analyzed via anintervention/control group methodology and thus would add to a greaterunderstanding of the generalization ramifications of results seen in thisstudy. Future research should continue in the areas of strengthening schooland parent partnerships, utilizing parents as tutors to implement researchbased interventions, and the need to continue conducting research in thearea of formal parent training with increased scientific rigor to further vali-date the direct link between the parent as the tutor and the success madeby the child. The practical implications of utilizing parents as tutors arelimitless both within the classroom as well as beyond the confines of theclassroom setting.

ReferencesAIMSweb: Progress Monitoring and RTI System. (2008). Reading – CBM oral

reading fluency. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/products/printed-cbm-measure-sets/reading-cbm-oral-reading-fluency

Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Olson, L.S. (2001). Schools, achievement, andinequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis,23, 171–191. Doi: 10.3102/01623737023002171.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Chafouleas, S.M., Martens, B.K., Dobson, R.L., Weinstein, K.S., & Gardner, K.B.(2004). Fluent reading as the improvement of stimulus control: Additive effectsof performance-based interventions to repeated reading on students’ reading anderror rates. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 67–81. Doi: 10.1023/B:JOBE.0000023656.45233.6f.

Christenson, S.L., Hurley, C.M., Sheridan, S.M., & Fenstermacher, K. (1997). Par-ents’ and school psychologists’ perspectives on parent involvement activities.School Psychology Review, 26(1), 111–130.

Christenson, S.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (2001). School and families: Creating essentialconnections for learning. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, F., Mood, A., Weinfeld,F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:US Government Printing Office.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Daly, E.J., III, Murdock, A., Lillenstein, L., Webber, L., & Lentz, F.E. (2002). Anexamination of methods for testing treatments: Conducting brief experimentalanalyses of the effects of instructional components on oral reading fluency. Edu-cation and Treatment of Children, 25, 288–316.

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and mathematics achievementsin kindergarten and first grade (US Department of Education, NCES 2002-125).Washington, DC: US government Printing Office.

Eckert, T., Ardoin, S., Daly, E., & Martens, B. (2002). Improving oral reading flu-ency: A brief experimental analysis of combining an antecedent interventionwith consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 35(3), 271–281.Doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-271.

Fiala, C.L., & Sheridan, S.M. (2003). Parent involvement and reading: Using curric-ulum based measurement to assess the effects of paired reading. Psychology inthe Schools, 40(6), 613–625. Doi: 10.1002/pits.10128.

Fishel, M., & Ramirez, L. (2005). Evidence-based parent involvement interventionswith school-aged children. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 371–402. Doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.371.

Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1982). Developing goals and objectives for educationalprograms. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities,University of Minnesota.

Goldenberg, C. (1989). Parents’ effects on academic grouping for reading: Threecase studies. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 329–352. Doi:10.3102/00028312026003329.

Gortmaker, V.J., Daly, E.J., McCurdy, M., Persampieri, M., & Hergenrader, M.(2007). Improving reading outcomes for children with learning disabilities:Using brief experimental analysis to develop parent-tutoring interventions. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 203–221. Doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.105-05.

Gresham, F.M., & Lopez, M.F. (1996). Social validation: A unifying concept forschool-based consultation research and practice. School Psychology Quarterly,11(3), 204–22710.1037/h0088930.

Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & Bocian, K. (2000).Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we reallyknow how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research andPractice, 15(4), 198–205.

Lane, K.L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M.E., Lambros, K.M., & Pierson, M. (2001).Designing effective interventions for children at-risk for antisocial behavior: An


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

integrated model of components necessary for making valid inferences. Psychol-ogy in the Schools, 38(4), 365–379. Doi: 10.1002/pits.1025.

Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007(NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

Lin, Q. (2003). Beginning school ready to learn: Understanding racial-ethnic andincome differences in parental involvement and first-time kindergartners’ aca-demic performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2), 391(a). (UMINo. 3080435.)

Lyst, A.M., Gabriel, S., O’Shaughnessy, T.E., Meyers, J., & Meyers, B. (2005).Social validity: Perceptions of check and connect with early literacy support.Journal of School Psychology, 43(3), 197–218. Doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.04.004.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching chil-dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literatureon reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat.1425 (2002).

Noell, G.H., Freeland, J.T., Witt, J.C., & Gansle, K.A. (2001). Using brief assess-ments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal ofSchool Psychology, 39, 335–355. Doi: 10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00072-3.

Resetar, J.L., Noell, G.H., & Pellegrin, A.L. (2006). Teaching parents to useresearch-supported systematic strategies to tutor their children in reading. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 21(3), 241–261. Doi: 10.1521/scpq.2006.21.3.241.

Samuels, S. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32,403–408. Doi: 10.1177/002221948301600205.

Schacter, J. (2003). Preventing summer reading declines in children who are disad-vantaged. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 47–58. Doi: 10.1177/105381510302600104.

Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development ofchildren’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. Doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00417.

Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. (1998). Differential effects ofhome literacy experiences on the development of oral and written language.Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 96–116.

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

Sheridan, S., Swanger-Gagné, M., Welch, G., Kwon, K., & Garbacz, A. (2009).Fidelity measurement in consultation: Psychometric issues and preliminaryexamination. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 476–495.

Therrien, W.J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeatedreading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261.

Toomey, D. (1993). Parents hearing their children read: A review. Rethink-ing the lessons of the haringey project. Educational Research, 35(3),223–236.

US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & National Centerfor Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES2003–529). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Witt, J.C., & Martens, B.K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral inter-ventions used in classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 20(4), 510–517. Doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198310)20:4<510::AID-PITS2310200420>3.0.CO;2-1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Wherry, J. (2007). Is parent involvement still important? Principal, 86, 8.Wright, J. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement: A manual for teachers. Syra-

cuse, NY: Syracuse City Schools.Zuckerman, B., & Khandekar, A. (2010). Reach out and read: Evidence based

approach to promoting early child development. Current Opinion in Pediatrics,22(4), 539–544. Doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32833a4673.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:56

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Training Parents as Effective Literacy Tutors: Increasing the Procedural Integrity of Tutoring