Abstract
Previous research used the learning hierarchy (LH) as a heuristic to select reading interventions based on the level of accuracy defined as the percentage of words read correctly. The current study examined the validity of the LH by reporting the prevalence of reading profiles proposed by the framework: Acquisition phase—inaccurate and slow, Proficiency phase—accurate and slow, and Generalization phase—accurate and fast to determine the extent to which the data could be used to drive reading interventions. The design also included a hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, which was not included in the LH. Reading fluency data from 223 second- and third-grade students were compared to accuracy (93%) and rate (national grade-level norms) criteria. When data were classified into the LH phases described above, 44.4% (n = 99) of the students were in the Acquisition phase, 23.8% (n = 53) were in the Proficiency phase, and 31.4% (n = 70) were in the Generalization phase. Less than 1% (n = 1) was in the hypothetical phase of inaccurate and fast, and the rarity of this occurrence was predicted by the LH. These data support the LH as a conceptual framework to drive diagnostic assessment, and the importance of examining accuracy data when designing reading fluency interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
American Reading Company. (2022). Core reading.
Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2287–2290. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.1922
Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Vagnoli, L., Valente, E., & Pinto, G. (2017). Reading fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4–9. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00200
Burns, M. K. (2021). Intensifying reading interventions through a skill-by-treatment interaction: What to do when nothing else worked. Communiqué, 50(4), 30–32.
Burns, M. K., Codding, R. S., Boice, C. H., & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087791
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Duesenberg-Marshall, M. D., Romero, M. E., Stevens, M. A., Izumi, J. T., & McCollom, E. M. (2022b). Decision accuracy of commonly used dyslexia screeners among students who are potentially at-risk for reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46(4), 073194872210966. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221096684
Burns, M. K., Young, H., McCollom, E. M., Stevens, M. A., & Izumi, J. (2022a). Predicting intervention effects with preintervention measures of decoding: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction with kindergarten and first-grade students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(4), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221113026
Carr, C. E., Umbreit, J., & Hartzell, R. (2021). Instructional level and engagement in students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 47(4), 236–244.
Daly, E. J., III., Lentz, F. E., Jr., & Boyer, J. (1996). The Instructional Hierarchy: A conceptual model for understanding the effective components of reading interventions. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088941
Dewey, E. N., Powell-Smith, K. A., Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2015) Acadience reading K-6 technical adequacy brief. Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Acadience_Reading_Technical_Adequacy_Brief.pdf
Dynamic Measurement Group. (2010). DIBELS next benchmark goals and composite score. Amplify. https://dibels.amplify.com/docs/dibels/next/DIBELSNextFormerBenchmarkGoals.pdf
Ellis, A. K., & Bond, J. B. (2016). Research on educational innovations (5th ed.). Routledge.
Erion, J., & Hardy, J. (2019). Parent tutoring, instructional hierarchy, and reading: A case study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(4), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1627998
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917703962
Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional difficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(9), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221947801100905
Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L. Hansen (Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Merrill Publishing Company.
Hosp, J. L., & Ardoin, S. P. (2008). Assessment for instructional planning. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508407311428
Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K. A., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052
Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24(4), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x
Keyes, S. E., Cartledge, G., Gibson, L., Jr., & Robinson-Ervin, P. (2016). Programming for generalization of oral reading fluency using computer-assisted instruction and changing fluency criteria. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(2), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0011
Kim, Y. S. G., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
Lai, S. A., George Benjamin, R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2014). The longitudinal relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension skills in second-grade children. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 30(2), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.789785
Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194
Little, C. W., Hart, S. A., Quinn, J. M., Tucker-Drob, E. M., Taylor, J., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Exploring the co-development of reading fluency and reading comprehension: A twin study. Child Development, 88(3), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12670
Lovett, M. W. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. Child Development, 25, 234–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130305
Morris, D., Meyer, C., Trathen, W., McGee, J., Vines, N., Stewart, T., Gill, T., & Schlagal, R. (2017). The simple view, instructional level, and the plight of struggling fifth-/sixth-grade readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1203272
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.). What is data-based individualization. https://intensiveintervention.org/data-based-individualization
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Academy Press.
Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Smith, G. S. (2014). Interpreting the relationships among prosody, automaticity, accuracy, and silent reading comprehension in secondary students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 123–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14535170
Parker, D. C., & Burns, M. K. (2014). Using the instructional level as a criterion to target reading interventions. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 30(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.702047
Scholin, S. E., & Burns, M. K. (2012). Relationship between pre-intervention data and post-intervention reading fluency and growth: A meta-analysis of assessment data for individual students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21599
Shin, J., & McMaster, K. (2019). Relations between CBM (oral reading and maze) and reading comprehension on state achievement tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 73, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.005
Smolkowski, K., & Cummings, K. D. (2016). Evaluation of the DIBELS decision system for the selection of native and proficient English speakers at risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915589017
Szadokierski, I., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2017). Predicting intervention effectiveness from reading accuracy and rate measures through the instructional hierarchy: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 46(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0013.V46-2
Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students’ reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087958
University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning. (2018). Understanding the research behind DIBELS® (8th edn.). (technical report 1801). https://dibels.uoregon.edu/sites/dibels1.uoregon.edu/files/DIBELS8thEdition_TechRpt1801_ResearchBrief.pdf
University of Oregon. (2020). DIBELS (8th edn.). https://dibels.uoregon.edu/dibels8
Vanderheyden, A. M., & Solomon, B. G. (2023). Valid outcomes for screening and progress monitoring: Fluency is superior to accuracy in curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology, 38(3), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000528
Young, C., Mohr, A. J., & Rasinski, T. (2015). Reading together: A successful reading fluency intervention. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.976678
Young, C., Pearce, D., Gomez, J., Christensen, R., Pletcher, B., & Fleming, K. (2018). Read two impress and the neurological impress method: Effects on elementary students’ reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(6), 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1393650
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no conflict of interest to report.
Ethical approval
The research was exempt from Internal Review Board approval because the data were collected by school personnel as part of typical educational practice.
Informed consent
The data were collected in accordance with Institutional Review Board guidelines, including processes for informed consent.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Burns, M.K. Examining the Learning Hierarchy with Accuracy and Rate Scores for Reading Fluency Among Second- and Third-Grade Students. J Behav Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09536-2