For students with persistent reading difficulties, research suggests one of the most effective ways to intensify interventions is to individualize instruction through use of performance data—a process known as data-based decision making (DBDM). This article reports a synthesis and meta-analysis of studies of reading interventions containing DBDM for struggling readers, as well as the characteristics and procedures that support the efficacy of these interventions. A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between 1975 and 2017 was conducted, resulting in 15 studies of reading interventions that incorporated DBDM for struggling readers in Grades K–12. A comparison of students who received reading interventions with DBDM with those in business-as-usual (BAU) comparison groups yielded a weighted mean effect of g = .24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.01 to .46]. A subset of six studies that compared students receiving similar reading interventions with and without DBDM yielded a weighted mean effect of g = .27, 95% CI = [.07, .47]. Implications for DBDM in reading interventions for struggling readers and areas for future research are described. In particular, experimental investigation is necessary to establish DBDM as an evidence-based practice for struggling readers.
ArdoinS.ChristT.MorenaL.CormierD.KlingbeilD. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM-R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18.
2.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
3.
ChristT.ZopluogluC.MonaghenB.Van NormanE. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: Multi-study evaluation of schedule, duration, and dataset quality on progress monitoring outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 19–57.
4.
*CoyneM.SimmonsD.Hagan-BurkeS.SimmonsL.KwokO.KimM.. . . RawlinsonD. (2013). Adjusting beginning reading intervention based on student performance: An experimental evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80, 25–44.
5.
DenoS.MirkinP. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
6.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
7.
*DentonC.TolarT.FletcherJ.BarthA.VaughnS.FrancisD. (2013). Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648.
8.
FuchsD.FuchsL. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111.
9.
FuchsD.FuchsL.ComptonD. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
10.
*FuchsL.FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
11.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43–52.
12.
*FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC.FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement, using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450.
13.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.
14.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaloneA. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50, 35–43.
15.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.
16.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills: Administration and scoring guide (6th ed.). Eugene: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, University of Oregon.
17.
GrissomR. J.KimJ. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GwetK. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Gaithersburg, MD: Advanced Analytics.
19.
HedbergE. C. (2011). Robumeta: Stata module to perform robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Statistical Software Components, S457219. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457219.html
20.
HedgesL.HedbergE. (2007). Intraclass correlation values for planning group-randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60–87.
21.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65.
22.
JenkinsJ.TerjesonK. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 28–35.
23.
*JonesE.KrouseJ. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild learning handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11, 9–19.
24.
KimJ. S.SamsonJ. F.FitzgeraldR.HartryA. (2010). A randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention for struggling readers in grades 4–6: Effects on word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing, 23, 1109–1129.
25.
KluteM.ApthorpH.HarlacherJ.RealeM. (2017). Formative assessment and elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence (REL 2017–259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
26.
LindsleyO. (1971). From Skinner to precision teaching: The child knows best. In JordanJ. B.RobinsL. S. (Eds.), Let’s try doing something else kind of thing: Behavior principles and the exceptional child (pp. 1–11). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
27.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Applied Social Research Methods Series. Vol. 49: Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
28.
*LittleM.RawlinsonD.SimmonsD.KimM.KwokO.Hagan-BurkeS.. . . CoyneM. D. (2012). A comparison of responsive interventions on kindergarteners’ early reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 189–202.
29.
*MathesP.DentonC.FletcherJ.AnthonyJ.FrancisD.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
30.
*McMasterK.FuchsD.FuchsL.ComptonD. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.
31.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education.
32.
O’ConnorR.FulmerD.HartyK.BellK. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
33.
O’ConnorR. E.FuchsL. S. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in the elementary grades: Implications for early childhood education. In BuysseV.Peisner-FeinbergE. S. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention in early childhood (pp. 41–55). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
*OrtliebE.McDowellF. (2016). Investigating the effects of an experimental approach to comprehension instruction within a literacy clinic. Current Issues in Education, 19, 1–16.
35.
ProutyR.PrillamanD. (1970). Diagnostic teaching: A modest proposal. The Elementary School Journal, 70, 265–270.
36.
RossiP.LipseyM.FreemanH. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
ShinnM. M.ShinnM. R. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook: Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
38.
SteckerP.FuchsL.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.
39.
SteckerP.LembkeE.FoegenA. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52, 48–58.
40.
Van NormanE.ChristT. (2016). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Accuracy of recommendations from three-point decision rules. School Psychology Review, 45, 296–309.
41.
VaughnS.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432–444.
42.
VaughnS.ElbaumB.WanzekJ.ScammaccaN.WalkerM. (2014). Code sheet and guide for education-related intervention study syntheses. Austin, TX: The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.
43.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.
44.
*VaughnS.SolísM.MiciakJ.TaylorW.FletcherJ. (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 23–44.
45.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 46–53.
46.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC.ScammaccaN.Linan-ThompsonS.WoodruffA. (2009). Response to early reading intervention examining higher and lower responders. Exceptional Children, 75, 165–183.
47.
*VaughnS.WexlerJ.LerouxA.RobertsG.DentonC.BarthA.FletcherJ. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 515–525.
48.
*VaughnS.WexlerJ.RobertsG.BarthA.CirinoP.RomainM.. . . DentonC. (2011). Effects of individualized and standardized interventions on middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77, 391–407.
49.
*Vernon-FeagansL.GallagherK.GinsbergM.AmendumS.KainzK.RoseJ.BurchinalM. (2010). A diagnostic teaching intervention for classroom teachers: Helping struggling readers in early elementary school. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 183–193.
50.
*Vernon-FeagansL.KainzK.AmendumS.GinsbergM.WoodT.BockA. (2012). Targeted reading intervention: A coaching model to help classroom teachers with struggling readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 102–114.
51.
*WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126–142.
52.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.MetzK.MurrayC.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195.
53.
ZimmermanB. J.DibenedettoM. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 206–216.
