Effects of a Multi-component Decoding Intervention for At-risk First Graders

Parker, David C.; Klingbeil, David A.; Hanrahan, Amanda R.; Schramm, Amber L.; Copek, Rebecca A.; Willenbrink, Jessica B.

doi:10.1007/s10864-020-09400-7

Original Paper
Published: 24 July 2020

Effects of a Multi-component Decoding Intervention for At-risk First Graders

David C. Parker ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-3783¹^na1,
David A. Klingbeil²^na1,
Amanda R. Hanrahan³,
Amber L. Schramm³,
Rebecca A. Copek³ &
Jessica B. Willenbrink³

Journal of Behavioral Education volume 31, pages 326–349 (2022)Cite this article

464 Accesses
6 Altmetric
Metrics details

Abstract

Young students who are struggling with reading need a strong foundation in decoding skills. The need for strong decoding skills is particularly true for students facing multiple risk factors. A robust research base exists for interventions that improve decoding skills, but that research base extends minimally to students facing several risk factors. We used a multiple-probe across behaviors design to evaluate the impact of a multi-component reading intervention on the decoding skills of four first grade students. During the multi-component intervention, students received several opportunities to construct, deconstruct, write, and read target words from different word families. Results were indicative of a functional relation between the intervention and improvements in word reading. This effect was replicated across all four study participants. Participants reported the intervention had high acceptability. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the componential model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318.
Article Google Scholar
August, D., McCardle, P., & Shanahan, T. (2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 43, 490–498. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-14-0088.1.
Article Google Scholar
Baker, S. K., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014– 4012). Washington, DC.
Beck, I. L., & Beck, M. E. (2013). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys. New York: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Blevins, W. (1998). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide. New York: Scholastic.
Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52, 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571.
Article Google Scholar
Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Children’s usage rating profile (actual). Storrs: University of Connecticut.
Google Scholar
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s tau and tau-u for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687.
Article Google Scholar
Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2010). RTI applications: Academic and behavioral interventions (Vol. 1). New York: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 82, 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472.
Article Google Scholar
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019). Common core state standards initiative: Preparing students for college and career. Retrieved May 27, 2019 from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/.
Daly, E. J., Neugebauer, S., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2015). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: Guilford.
Google Scholar
Dewey, E. N., Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (2014). DIBELS next national norms 2012–2013 (Technical Report No. 17). Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group.
Ehri, L. C. (2017). Orthographic mapping and literacy development revisited. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393.
Article Google Scholar
Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). The structure of oral language and reading and their relation to comprehension in Kindergarten through Grade 2. Reading and Writing, 28, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9544-5.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700603.
Article Google Scholar
García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.
Article Google Scholar
Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 239–281). New York: Routledge.
Chapter Google Scholar
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Dewey, E. N., Wallin, J., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Lattimer, R. J. (2013). DIBELS Next technical manual. Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. http://dibels.org.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104.
Article Google Scholar
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690003400204.
Article Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486.
Article Google Scholar
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.
Article Google Scholar
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435921.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Kieffer, M. J., & Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Components and context: Exploring sources of reading difficulties for language minority learners and native English speakers in urban schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432683.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Klingbeil, D. A., Van Norman, E. R., & Nelson, P. M. (2017). Precision of curriculum-based measurement reading data: Considerations for multiple-baseline designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 26, 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9282-7.
Article Google Scholar
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). What works clearinghouse: Single-case design technical documentation. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/wwc_scd.pdf.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ludwig, C., Guo, K., & Georgiou, G. K. (2019). Are reading interventions for English language learners effective? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419825855.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2017). Early indicators of later English reading comprehension outcomes among children from Spanish-speaking homes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 428–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1320402.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_05.
Article Google Scholar
Moore, B. A., & Klingner, J. K. (2014). Considering the needs of English language learner populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412466702.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Richards-Tutor, C., Baker, D. L., Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483.
Article Google Scholar
Skinner, C. H. (2013). Contextual validity: Knowing what works is necessary but not sufficient. The School Psychologist, 61, 14–21.
Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002.
Article Google Scholar
Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 61, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1219301.
Article Google Scholar
Stanley, C. T., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing, 31, 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9777-6.
Article Google Scholar
Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.
Article Google Scholar
Tarlow, K. R. (2016). Baseline corrected tau calculator. http://www.ktarlow.com/stats/tau.
Tarlow, K. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline corrected tau. Behavior Modification, 41, 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516676750.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 215–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961.
Article Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Miciak, J., Cho, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2019). How initial word reading and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782618.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

David C. Parker and David A. Klingbeil have contributed equally to this manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations

ServeMinnesota, 120 S. 6th St., Suite 2260, Minneapolis, MN, 55402, USA
David C. Parker
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA
David A. Klingbeil
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA
Amanda R. Hanrahan, Amber L. Schramm, Rebecca A. Copek & Jessica B. Willenbrink

Authors

David C. Parker
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
David A. Klingbeil
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Amanda R. Hanrahan
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Amber L. Schramm
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rebecca A. Copek
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jessica B. Willenbrink
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David C. Parker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee IRB#17.091) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, D.C., Klingbeil, D.A., Hanrahan, A.R. et al. Effects of a Multi-component Decoding Intervention for At-risk First Graders. J Behav Educ 31, 326–349 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09400-7

Download citation

Published: 24 July 2020
Issue Date: June 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09400-7

Keywords

Decoding
Reading
Single-case design