Presentation on theme: "The Effectiveness of Standardized versus Individualized Interventions in Reading Melissa Coolong-Chaffin, PhD, NCSP Michael Axelrod, PhD, LP, NCSP Kaitlin."— Presentation transcript:
The Effectiveness of Standardized versus Individualized Interventions in Reading Melissa Coolong-Chaffin, PhD, NCSP Michael Axelrod, PhD, LP, NCSP Kaitlin O’Shea, MSE Kimberlee Maczko, MSE Karissa Danes, MSE University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire 1
Disclosures There are no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, associated with this presentation Our program is currently funded by UWEC
Acknowledgements Statistical analysis- Kelly O’Shea Undergraduate student interventionists School partners, staff, and students
Today’s Agenda Intervention Selection within RtI Academic Intervention Clinic at UWEC Method Great Leaps versus BEA Results Discussion Implications for practice Questions, comments
Problem Solving Within RtI Tier 1 CORE Primary Prevention: Schoolwide and classwide instruction Tier 2 SUPPLEMENTAL Secondary Prevention: Intensified, validated intervention Tier 3 INTENSIVE Tertiary Prevention: Further intensified and individualized Intervention ~80% of students ~15% ~5%
Assessment within a PS Model Focuses on answering questions such as What skills should we teach? How should we teach the skills? As opposed to Does the student meet eligibility criteria? Brief Experimental Analysis allows us to answer the first two questions, however resource intensive
Questions remain How do we select interventions for at risk and high risk students? Is a packaged intervention sufficient, or do at risk students benefit from an individualized approach? Our study explored the following research question: Do students who receive interventions indicated by a BEA make greater gains in oral reading fluency than students who receive an standardized approach?
Academic Intervention Clinic at UWEC History Objectives 1.Provide brief academic interventions to students 2.Train undergraduate students to: Implement evidence-based interventions with fidelity Accurately collect outcome data Currently in 3 schools Funded primary through the university’s undergraduate differential tuition program
Participants Second grade students from two schools in small city in the upper Midwest School One, 82% of students receive FRL School Two, 46% of students receive FRL Referred to an afterschool reading program by their teachers due to ORF performance below benchmark BEA n= 15 GL n= 19
Procedures Students randomly assigned to receive modified Great Leaps or intervention identified through brief experimental analysis Approximately equal numbers in each school Three grade level passages from Formative Assessment System for Children (FAST) were administered to establish baseline Great Leaps placement test or BEA Intervention occurred in 25 minute sessions two times per week for 7 weeks
Procedures Progress was monitored one time per week using grade level FAST passage (WRCM) After 7 weeks of intervention, three passages were administered as a follow up
Great Leaps Standard Treatment Intervention Daily practice of reading skills Phonological awareness Phonics Oral Reading Fluency Includes modeling, multiple opportunities to practice, graphing and incentives for increased performance (Mercer & Campbell, 1998)
Empirical Support for Great Leaps Effective for increasing oral reading fluency Mercer, Cambell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane (2000) Begeny, Schulte, & Johnson (2012)
Great Leaps in Our Study Adapted for the study More repetitions of the activities Filled a 25-minute time period two times per week for seven weeks Three activities each session Phonics High Frequency Word Lists/Phrases Stories
Great Leaps Procedure Student reads probe (phonics, high-frequency words or stories) for one-minute. Standard Error Correction Procedure Correct errors as they are made Review errors at the end of 1-min reading Interventionist computes WRCM and tells student the score Mark it on the graph. Repeat process 3 times each session for each activity Student can earn prize.
Brief Experimental Analysis (BEA) Allows us to “test drive” interventions in order to find one that fits best for an individual student Compare multiple interventions to one another Helps us identify promising interventions to implement over time
General BEA Procedure Student reads alone to establish baseline E.g., CBM-R probe, early reading probe Implement intervention using that probe Administer probe again after the intervention Look at increase over baseline Replication Extended Analysis
Empirical Support for BEA Using BEA to select interventions is an effective approach to identifying successful interventions. Meta-analysis of oral reading fluency - Burns & Wagner (2008) Early Literacy Skills - Pettursdottir et al. (2009) Math - Mong & Mong (2012) Writing – Parker et al. (2012)
BEA in Our Study “Test drive” three different interventions Repeated Reading (RR) Listening Passage Preview (LPP) Incentive Attempt to replicate intervention effects by comparing top two Implement “winner” for 7 weeks WSPA Fall 2013
Repeated Reading with Error Correction Allows us to see if student needs more practice Student reads alone to establish baseline Student practices reading probe 3 times Errors are corrected after each reading Student reads alone for one minute while interventionist records WRCM and errors
Listening Passage Preview Allows us to see if the student needs more modeling at the passage level Student reads passage to establish baseline Interventionist reads passage to provide a model of fluent reading (proper pacing and expression) Student reads alone for one minute while interventionist records WRCM and errors
Incentive Allows us to see if student isn’t motivated Student reads passage to establish baseline Student is told she will earn a prize if she “beats her score” (usually 20% increase) Student reads alone for one minute while interventionist records WRCM and errors Count words read correct and errors, give prize if earned
Results Descriptive Information Both groups’ scores generally increased over time. The BEA group had higher mean scores at every time point. Independent Samples T-Test Statistically significant difference in overall WRCM growth between groups. BEA group had a higher overall WRCM growth than the GL group. BEA Mean = 16.80 WRCM Growth GL Mean = 4.26 WRCM Growth Large effect size - Cohen’s d =.83.
Limitations Small sample size Between groups design All of BEA interventions focused on passage reading fluency Great Leaps intervention include fluency practice for words, phrases, passages More research is needed
Implications BEA-indicated interventions may be more effective than a modified version of the Great Leaps intervention Ongoing progress monitoring is always best practice
Implications Training Time intensive May take 45-90 minutes to complete BEA Makes this appropriate for Tier 3 Importance of demonstrating experimental control in applied settings How many demonstrations of experimental effects are needed?
Contact Information Human Development Center Website: http://www.uwec.edu/HDC/resources.htm http://www.uwec.edu/HDC/resources.htm Dr. Coolong-Chaffin firstname.lastname@example.org 715-836-3925 Dr. Axelrod email@example.com 715-836-5020
References Begeny, J.C., Schulte, A.C., Johnson, K. (2012). Enhancing instructional problem solving: An efficient system for assisting struggling learners. New York: The Guilford Press. Burns, M.K. & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37 (1), 126-136. Christ, T. J., Ardoin, S., Monaghen, B., Van Norman, E. & White, M. J. (2013). CBMReading: Technical Manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology. Mercer, C. D. & Campbell, K.U. (1998). Great Leaps Reading Kindergarten- Grade 2. Gainsville, FL: Diarmuid. Mercer, C.D., Campbell, K.U., Miller, W.D., Mercer, K.D., & Lane, H.B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15 (4), 179-189.