Repeated reading versus continuous reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension.
O’Connor, R. E., White, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Exceptional Children, 74(1), 31–46. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ817519
-
examining10Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Repeated reading—O'Connor 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Reading Inventory Fluency Rate (wpm) |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
61.33 |
43.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fluency |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.51 |
13.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Comprehension |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.91 |
9.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.86 |
87.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.60 |
88.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Repeated reading—O'Connor et al. (2007) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.00 |
85.00 |
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Study Details
Setting
The students in the study are in the U.S. Both interventions involved individual one-on-one instruction between students and tutors.
Study sample
The study was not wholly composed of students with disabilities or ELL students. There were two second-grade study students with learning disabilities. There were 7 students in the study who spoke English as a second language. Though the study did not specify how many ELL students came from 2nd grade, even if they all did, the second grade sample would not be wholly comprised of ELL students.
Intervention Group
(1) Both interventions -- repeated reading and continuous reading -- were conducted one-on-one with students and tutors (trained adult listeners) for three times a week over the course of 14 weeks. (2) For repeated reading, students read the same text 3 times during the tutoring session. (3) For continuous reading, students read the same material as the repeated readers, but did not repeat any pages and just read more pages instead. (4) The reading material was selected so that it was at the students' instruction reading level (text read with 88 to 94% accuracy). (5) The first and second authors and two other hired tutors acted as the adult listeners.
Comparison Group
(1) Comparison condition students received no intervention from the research staff. (2) 5 control students received special education services. (3) 2 second grade control students participated in Title I small group reading.
Support for implementation
Tutors for the interventions were trained during a 2 hour session by the first author. The first author also observed tutors during their first two treatment days and corrected errors.
Repeated Reading Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2014
- 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 Repeated Reading.
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).