Exceptional Children最新文献

This article introduces the special section on adaptive interventions and sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) research designs. In addition to describing the two accompanying articles, we discuss features of adaptive interventions (AIs) and describe the use of SMART design to optimize AIs in the context of multitiered systems of support (MTSS) and integrated MTSS. AI is a treatment delivery model that explicitly specifies how information about individuals should be used to decide which treatment to provide in practice. Principles that apply to the design of AIs may help to more clearly operationalize MTSS-based programs, improve their implementation in school settings, and increase their efficacy when used according to evidence-based decision rules. A SMART is a research design for developing and optimizing MTSS-based programs. We provide a running example of a SMART design to optimize an MTSS-aligned AI that integrates academic and behavioral interventions.

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; effect size [ES] = 0.22; p = .40), although the mean ES was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .59) for students with or at risk for WLRD. More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Because of the importance of teaching reading comprehension to struggling young readers and the infrequency with which it has been implemented and evaluated, we designed a comprehensive first-grade reading comprehension program. We conducted a component analysis of the program's decoding/fluency (DF) and reading comprehension (COMP) dimensions, creating DF and DF+COMP treatments to parse the value of COMP. Students (N = 125) were randomly assigned to the 2 active treatments and controls. Treatment children were tutored 3 times per week for 21 weeks in 45-min sessions. Children in DF and DF+COMP together performed more strongly than controls on word reading and comprehension. However, pretreatment word reading appeared to moderate these results such that children with weaker beginning word reading across the treatments outperformed similarly low-performing controls to a significantly greater extent than treatment children with stronger beginning word reading outperformed comparable controls. DF+COMP children did not perform better than DF children. Study limitations and implications for research and practice are discussed.

This study examined how differences in listening comprehension and word reading at the beginning of the school year influence changes in reading comprehension for English learners (ELs) with significant reading difficulties compared to non-ELs with significant reading difficulties. The study investigated heterogeneity in response to instruction among 400 struggling readers in fourth grade (n = 183 for non-EL; n = 217 for EL) who received an intensive reading intervention. At pretest, word reading, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension were measured, and at posttest, reading comprehension was measured again. Results from moderated multiple regression analyses showed a significant three-way interaction such that reading comprehension at posttest was higher for ELs than non-ELs with similar levels of low word reading but relatively higher levels of listening comprehension. However, non-ELs outperformed ELs with similar levels of relatively high word reading and average to high listening comprehension. The findings suggest that pre-intervention skill profiles may need to be interpreted differently for ELs and non-ELs with significant reading difficulties in relation to language and literacy outcomes.

The purpose of this analysis was to assess whether effects of 1^st-grade mathematics intervention apply across the range of at-risk learners' initial skill levels. Students were randomly assigned to control (n=213) and 2 variants of intervention (n=385) designed to improve arithmetic. Of each 30-minute intervention session (48 over 16 weeks), 25 minutes were identical in the 2 variants, focused on number knowledge that provides the conceptual bases for arithmetic. The other 5 minutes provided non-speeded conceptual practice (n=196) or speeded strategic practice (n=199). Contrasts tested effects of intervention (combined across variants) versus control and effects between the variants. Moderation analysis indicated no significant interactions between at-risk children's pre-intervention mathematics skill and either contrast on any outcome. Across pre-intervention math skill, effects favored intervention over control on arithmetic and transfer to double-digit calculations and number knowledge and favored speeded over non-speeded practice on arithmetic.

Nonmainstream American English, or dialect, among children may have important implications for reading research and practice. However, much of the research involving relations between dialect and literacy has analyzed dialect use in only one context and has omitted students with speech, language, and learning disabilities. Consequently, we examined dialect use in an oral narrative and two writing samples in relation to concurrent and longitudinal reading outcomes in a diverse sample of students, including those with diagnosed disabilities. Overall, most students used features of dialect in oral and written language. Dialect use was significantly and negatively predictive of reading outcomes the same year and 2 years later. Moderator analyses indicated a similar relationship between dialect use and reading for students with speech, language, and learning disabilities, suggesting that students with these disabilities who also use dialect may be at increased risk for reading difficulties. Implications for practice and future research are provided.

Combining data from a series of three planned, consecutive independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the present study investigates two literacy interventions for preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For the first cohort, children were randomized to interactive book reading treatment (IBR)or a business-as-usual (BAU) control condition; in Cohort 2, children were randomized to phonological awareness treatment (PA)or BAU; in Cohort 3, children were randomized to IBR or PA. Both treatments were implemented weekly in the classroom from November to May. Combined across cohorts, data from n =47 IBR, n =42 PA, and n =44 BAU students from 57 classrooms in 8 districts were available for analysis. Model results showed that IBR had significantly greater pretest-posttest gains than the sample mean on expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension (d*=0.29 and 0.30), whereas PA had significantly greater phonological awareness gains (d*=0.39).