The Efficacy of Repeated Reading and Wide Reading Practice for High School Students with Severe Reading Disabilities
Wexler, Jade; Vaughn, Sharon; Roberts, Greg; Denton, Carolyn A. (2010). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v25 n1 p2-10. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ872197
-
examining62Students, grades9-12
Repeated Reading Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2014
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Repeated Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
73.02 |
71.51 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
71.86 |
71.12 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency (TOSRE) |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
13.72 |
14.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Words Read Correctly Per Minute (WCPM) #3 |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
83.81 |
78.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF) |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
75.60 |
76.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Words Read Correctly Per Minute (WCPM) #2 |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
83.00 |
86.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
AIMSweb system: Words read correctly per minute (WCPM) #1 |
Repeated Reading vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grades 9-12;
|
86.70 |
91.62 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 29%
Male: 71% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 11 classrooms serving grades 9–12 from schools in a metropolitan area in the southwestern United States.
Study sample
The study included 106 students from 11 special education English and reading classes who were randomly assigned to three conditions. This report only reviews findings for the 62 students in the repeated reading group (33 students) and comparison group (29 students). Students within each class were paired based on median pretest oral reading fluency scores—higher scorers were paired with lower scorers in such a way that practice texts would be appropriate for both students in the pair. Each pair was then randomly assigned to one of the intervention conditions. The overall attrition rate for this sample was 9%, and the differential attrition rate was about 4%. All students in the study had significant reading difficulties, as indicated by failing reading scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS), and were enrolled in special education English and reading classes. Seventy-seven percent of the 62 students in the repeated reading and comparison groups were learning disabled (the study does not indicate how the students were identified as learning disabled).
Intervention Group
The repeated reading intervention was administered by two graduate research assistants and a full-time school employee for 15 to 20 minutes each day, five times a week, for 10 weeks. Intervention materials were taken from The Six-Minute Solution,7 Read Naturally®, and Quick Reads®. Selections were based on the lower-level reader from each pair.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the instruction they would normally receive from their classroom teachers.
Outcome descriptions
Seven reading measures were administered before and after the intervention. Reading comprehension was measured by the Passage Comprehension subtest of the WJ III. Alphabetics was measured by the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the WJ III. Reading fluency was measured by administration of the TOSCRF and by three oral reading fluency passages taken from the AIMSweb system. General reading achievement was measured by the TOSRE. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
The repeated reading instructors were trained in two 3-hour sessions on partner reading, intervention procedures, and monitoring procedures.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Wexler, J. A. P. (2008). The relative effects of repeated reading, wide reading, and a typical instruction comparison group on the comprehension, fluency, and word reading of adolescents with reading disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(12–A), 5034.
Read Naturally Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Read Naturally.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).