Effects of a fluency-building program on the reading performance of low-achieving second and third grade students.
Martens, B., Eckert, T., Begeny, J., Lewandowski, L., Digennaro, F., Montarello, S., . . . Fiese, B. (2007). Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(1), 38–53. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ757777
-
examining30Students, grades2-3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): second grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Aggregated Sample;
|
51.62 |
47.97 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): third grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Aggregated Sample;
|
38.96 |
40.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): fourth grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Aggregated sample;
|
45.40 |
46.87 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): second grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
40.72 |
36.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): second grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
57.39 |
53.85 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): fourth grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
48.43 |
48.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): third grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
27.40 |
29.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): third grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
44.46 |
45.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Words read correctly per minute (WRCM): fourth grade level |
Fluency-based reading program—Martens et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
39.17 |
44.62 |
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.
-
Female: 66% -
Urban
-
- 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
Northeast
Study Details
Setting
Training sessions were conducted individually or in small groups during the school's after school program.
Intervention Group
"At the beginning of each training session, students were asked to read a passage. If the student was not able to read at or above 100 WRCM (words ready correctly per minute), the experimenter conducted a training (individually or in small groups) that consisted of phase drill error correction (PD), listening passage preview (LPP), and repeated readings (RR). After the training was conducted, the child was asked to read the same passage as they did at the start of the session. If the student was able to read at or above 100 WRCM (words ready correctly per minute) on the first passage, they were given a more difficult passage until they were not able to reach 100 WRCM. At that point, the training was conducted on the passage that the student scored less than 100 WRCM on. The study was conducted over a 7 week period for the second grade students and an 8 week period for the third grade students. The fluency-based training program was conducted over a 5 week period for second grade students and a 6 week period for the third grade students. Pre and posttesting accounted for the remaining 2 weeks of the study. For both second and third grade students, one training session lasting 30 minutes was conducted Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week at about the same time. The sessions involved the pretraining assessment, training of the passage on which 100 WRCM was not achieved on the pretraining assessment, and post training assessment as described above. Training sessions were conducted individually or in small groups during the school's after school program. "
Comparison Group
Students in the control group participated in the regular after-school program which consisted of worksheet activities in language arts and a snack while students in the intervention group participated in the fluency-based training.
Support for implementation
Trainers were 5 school psychology graduate students and 11 undergraduate students majoring in psychology. A minimum of four trainers were required to conduct each training session. The trainers received training and practice in the intervention and assessment procedures prior to the start of the study. They also received feedback on their performance.
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).