Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 917–943 | Cite as

Experimental intervention research on students with specific poor comprehension: a systematic review of treatment outcomes

  • Sung Hee Lee
  • Shu-Fei Tsai
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Students with specific poor comprehension (SPC) can sound out words accurately, but have difficulty understanding what they read. However, most existing reading intervention studies on students with reading disabilities did not differentiate students with SPC from other types of students with reading disabilities who accompany with decoding difficulties. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize findings from 14 experimental intervention studies that have included students with SPC with the goal of increasing reading comprehension. Out of eight types of interventions identified, Reciprocal Teaching (g = .856) demonstrated the largest effect size. Metalinguistic intervention showed the effect size of above .50 (a medium effect size), suggesting that intervention that explicitly teaches high-level oral language strategies was positive to improve reading performances of students with SPC. Findings also suggest a need to specify the classification criteria of students with SPC to broaden an understanding about the evidence-based intervention for students with SPC. Practical implications for effective practice, limitations, and future directions are discussed.

Keywords

Poor comprehenders Students with Specific poor comprehension Meta-analysis Reading intervention 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school structures in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 309–332. doi: 10.3102/00028312035002309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 423–436. doi: 10.1177/0741932509355988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2014). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3.0). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
  4. Bornstein, M. (2005). Software for publication bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Bornstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 193–220). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, K. (1996). Story knowledge and comprehension skill. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 683–696. doi: 10.1348/000709905X67610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671–681. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cain, K., & Towse, A. S. (2008). To get hold of the wrong end of the stick: Reasons for poor idiom understanding in children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1538–1549. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0269).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15, 44.Google Scholar
  12. Cicchetti, D. V., & Feinstein, A. R. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(6), 551–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, P. J., Snowling, M. J., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating children’s reading comprehension difficulties: A randomised controlled trial. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1106–1116. doi: 10.1177/0956797610375449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., Valentine, J., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: The Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Duff, F. J., & Clarke, P. J. (2011). Practitioner review: Reading disorders: What are the effective interventions and how should they be implemented and evaluated? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 3–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02310.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorder (pp. 501–520). New York, NY: Guildford.Google Scholar
  18. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(6), 543–549. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor readers’ awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 55–63. doi: 10.1080/10862968009547352.Google Scholar
  21. Garner, R., & Kraus, C. (1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Education Research Quarterly, 6, 5–12.Google Scholar
  22. Garner, R., Wagoner, S., & Smith, T. (1983). Externalizing questions-answering strategies of good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. doi: 10.3102/00346543071002279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’ judgments of reading. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 228–240.Google Scholar
  25. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. doi: 10.1007/BF00401799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Idol, L., & Croll, V. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–229. doi: 10.2307/1510494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2000). Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehenders: Verbal versus visual strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 772–782. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2005). Web-based training of metacognitive strategies for text comprehension: Focus on poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 755–786. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-0956-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keenan, J. M., Hua, A. N., Meenan, C. E., Olson, R. K., Pennington, B. F., & Willcutt, E. G. (2014). Issues in identifying poor comprehenders. L’année Psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 753–777. doi: 10.4074/S0003503314004072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, S. H., & Hudson, R. F. (2008). Comparing classification criteria used to select poor comprehenders. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Pacific Coast Research Conference. San Diego, California.Google Scholar
  32. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1989). Reciprocal instruction improves standardized reading comprehension performance in poor grade-school comprehenders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, California, USA.Google Scholar
  33. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 18(4), 197–216. doi: 10.1177/074193259701800402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCulley, L. V., & Osman, D. J. (2015). Effects of reading instruction on learning outcomes in social studies: A synthesis of quantitative research. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 39, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mcgee, A., & Johnson, H. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Educational Psychology, 23, 49–59. doi: 10.1080/01443410303220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nation, K. (1999). Reading skills in hyperlexia: A developmental perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 338–355. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with poor reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 549–560. doi: 10.1348/00070990260377604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nation, K., & Norbury, C. F. (2005). Why reading comprehension fails. Topics Language Disorders, 25, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70, B1–B13. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00004-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Factors influencing syntactic awareness skills in normal readers and poor comprehenders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Retrieved from: http://www.dys-add.com/resources/SpecialEd/TeachingChildrenToRead.pdf.
  44. Oakhill, J. V. (1984). Inferential and memory skills in children’s comprehension of stories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 31–39. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1984.tb00842.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–686. doi: 10.1007/s11145-005-3355-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oakhill, J. V., & Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems? Journal of Research in Reading, 14, 106–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.1991.tb00012.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oakhill, J., Yuill, N., & Donalson, M. L. (1990). Understanding of causal expressions in skilled and less skilled text comprehenders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(4), 401–410. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1990.tb00854.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Palincsar, A. S. (1987). Collaborating for collaborative learning of text comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  49. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530. doi: 10.3102/00346543064004479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stern, J. A., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Bornstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 99–110). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Stothard, S. E., & Hulme, C. (1992). Reading comprehension difficulties in children: The role of language comprehension and working memory skills. Reading and Writing, 4, 245–256. doi: 10.1007/BF01027150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Talbott, E., Llyod, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehensions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223–232. doi: 10.2307/1511075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011). How effective are family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 69–96. doi: 10.3102/0034654310388819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wood, J. A. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yuill, N. (1998). Reading and riddling: The role of riddle appreciation in understanding and improving poor text comprehension in children. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 17(2), 313–342.Google Scholar
  57. Yuill, N. (2009). The relation between ambiguity understanding and metalinguistic discussion of joking riddles in good and poor comprehenders: Potential for intervention and possible processes of change. First Language, 29(1), 65–79. doi: 10.1177/0142723708097561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yuill, N., & Joscelyn, T. (1988). Effects of organizational cues and strategies on good and poor comprehenders’ story understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 152–158. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 33–45. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350020105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Counseling, Special Education, and School Psychology, Beeghly College of EducationYoungstown State UniversityYoungstownUSA
  2. 2.Department of Infant and Child CareNational Taipei University of Nursing and Health SciencesTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options