Fluency 9

Individualizing Guided Oral Reading Fluency Instruction for Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders S T E P H A N I E A L O TA I B A

AND

M A B E L O. R I V E R A

Guided oral reading fluency instruction is a researchvalidated strategy for improving reading achievement. This article addresses ways to individualize guided oral reading fluency instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders using behavioral principles. In addition, the article explains how to use data to set goals and monitor students’ responsiveness to fluency intervention. Several resources for fluency materials are listed, as are Web-based resources for additional reading.

F

luent reading with comprehension has become the gateway to success as our increasingly technological society relies more than ever on a literate workforce (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000). Yet, very few students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) read fluently enough to comprehend grade-level text or perform gradelevel work (Trout, Nordness, Pierece, & Epstein, 2003). Typically, the reading achievement of students with E/ BD is 1.5 to 2 grade levels lower than that of their peers in elementary school and even lower when they reach high school (Countinho, 1986; Kauffman, Cullinan, & Epstein, 1987). Once students with E/BD lag behind their classmates in reading, they encounter and practice fewer words on their grade level. Meanwhile, their successful peers continue to read grade-level text and expand their sight–word

144 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

vocabulary, so it becomes even more difficult for them to catch up. Stanovich (1986) described the phenomena of good readers improving across time making it nearly impossible for poor readers to catch up as the “Matthew Effects.” A lack of grade-level reading skills results in dysfluency, which interferes with performance during reading instruction, as well as during content area instruction. Students with E/BD are at high risk for academic problems due to their reading difficulties and because of their pervasive behavioral problems and documented resistance to instructional efforts (Levy & Vaughn, 2002; Trout et al., 2003). Consequently, during their high school careers, nearly half (44.6%) of students with E/BD fail one or more courses (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). Further, nearly 70% of students with E/BD fail one or more grade-level high-stakes competency exams (e.g., VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 ( PP. 144–149)

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, 2003). Thus, not surprisingly, more than half of students with E/BD drop out of school; subsequently, students with E/BD are less likely to graduate than students with other types of disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The magnitude of the problem is growing. Over the past 10 years, the number of students with E/BD served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) jumped to more than 460,000, which represents a 20% increase (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In light of the ambitious goal of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), which aims for all children to be reading at grade level, it is important to consider how educators can help students with E/BD catch up in reading. NCLB requires that teachers provide instruction that is evidence-based—in other words, instruction that is consistent with findings from two seminal national reviews. The first was conducted by Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) and the second by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). Findings from these two syntheses of research agreed that reading instruction should be explicit and systematic and should include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NRP, 2000). Furthermore, both reports highlighted the importance of intensive and individualized intervention to meet the needs of struggling readers. Despite the knowledge base of effective instruction for struggling readers, several recent research reviews have expressed regret about the limited research-based guidance for educators in improving reading achievement of students with E/BD (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000; Mooney, Epstein, Reid, & Nelson, 2003; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002). In addition, observational studies have suggested that the quality of reading instruction delivered to students with E/BD is generally low; therefore, more time was devoted to seatwork than research-validated practices, such as direct instruction in reading, and more time was spent in large-group undifferentiated instruction than in one-toone individualized instruction (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000). This article draws on the NRP (2000) findings, which support the efficacy of guided oral reading fluency instruction. This strategy was found to improve not only the rate and accuracy of reading but also reading comprehension of students with reading difficulties. Because the studies reviewed by the NRP (2000) did not include students with E/BD, the this article suggests ways to individualize guided oral reading fluency instruction using behavioral principles.

What Is the Theory Behind Reading Fluency? For the past three decades, researchers have validated LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) theory of automatic infor-

mation processing (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). Their theory suggested that reading automatically (i.e., reading accurately at an efficient rate) “frees” the learner to focus on the meaning of the text. Rate and accuracy are the two main domains of fluent reading (NRP, 2000). A third domain is prosody, or the ability to read with expression. Although prosody is largely seen as a byproduct of processing text automatically, it will not be the focus of this article. Rate is the time it takes a learner to read. Accuracy relates to words recognized and pronounced correctly. With the understanding that comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, individuals who read fluently are able to focus on the meaning of text, hold larger chunks of text in working memory, and integrate the meaning of text with their background knowledge (Adams, 1990). On the other hand, students with slower reading rates may process less text, recall less information, and struggle to integrate prior knowledge (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Accelerating accuracy and speed is an indicator of positive progress when measuring a students’ reading achievement (Espin & Tindal, 1998; Hasbrouk & Tindal, 1992; Shinn, 1998). Furthermore, there is a strong, clear relationship between fluency and comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). Therefore, a critical goal should be to accelerate reading fluency of students with E/BD.

Guided Oral Reading Research-Validated Fluency Instruction When the NRP (2000) reviewed the literature on effective methods and materials for fluency instruction, they found widespread agreement that reading practice builds fluency. The strongest evidence favored guided repeated oral reading techniques. By contrast, the NRP did not find empirical evidence for encouraging children to do silent independent reading. That is not to say that independent reading is not helpful, but to date, no controlled scientific studies have demonstrated its efficacy. Guided repeated oral reading is based on repeated readings (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Meyer & Felton, 1999; Mastropieri, Leinart, & Scruggs, 1999; NRP, 2000; Samuels, 1979). Repeated readings consist of having the student read and reread a passage aloud several times until achieving a desired criteria (Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). Researchers have generally recommended that students practice three to five times per week for about 10 min (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002). Students should reread passages roughly three to five times or until they reach a pre-established criterion (e.g., 90 words correct per minute). Guided oral fluency differs from repeated reading by emphasizing immediate teacher feedback and guidance. VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 145

Individualizing Instruction for Students With E/BD To maximize the effects of guided repeated oral reading for students, here are some suggested steps for teachers of students with E/BD: First, teachers should carefully select reading passages based on assessment by considering the interest and reading level of their students with E/BD. The best passages are not only engaging but also tailored to the individual reading level of each student. In other words, passages consist of words mostly familiar to the students. A rule of thumb is that these passages should be at the student’s independent reading level (i.e., students should have a 95% accuracy rate). Furthermore, passages should have a relatively large number of common or overlapping words, rather than a large number of unique words (Dowhower, 1987; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). Table 1 provides a list of commercially available materials for fluency practice. Second, teachers should provide a model of fluent reading using a format that captures the attention of students with E/BD. In general, many young students benefit most from having a teacher, paraprofessional, or tutor provide a live model of fluent reading. Dowhower (1987) suggested that students who read between 25 to 45 words per minute may be less frustrated when supported by a live model. The live model can also help a child preview a text, check for understanding, and preteach vocabulary as needed. Older and more proficient students may prefer to read along with a tape recorder (Dowhower, 1987) or computer-assisted programs (Carver & Hoffman, 1981; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). To date, only one study directly compared the effects of a teacher versus a computer versus no model on students with E/BD (Dawson, Venn, & Gunter, 2000). The four participants (boys ages 7 to 8) read at roughly a first-grade level. The intervention took place in a resource room setting. Findings suggested that children read statistically significantly more words correctly when provided the teacher model than the computer model or no model; children using the computer model read more words correctly than children with no model.

For some students with E/BD, teachers may also incorporate explicit behavioral strategies in their modeling, such as time-delay prompting, error correction (Browder & D’Huyvetters, 1988), and tangible reinforcers (Cochran, Feng, Cartledge, & Hamilton, 1993). Time delay prompting includes the use of a prompt, or cue, after allowing the learner a predetermined amount of time to pronounce a word correctly. Error correction provides immediate feedback after the response. Tangible reinforcers are desired objects given to the learner following a desired response (i.e., sounding out a word quickly, recognizing a word by sight, improving the rate of reading). Third, teachers need to motivate students with E/BD to practice reading because research has suggested that students who have reading difficulties benefit from extensive practice or multiple exposures to text. As previously mentioned, students read and reread a passage aloud, generally 3 to 5 times (Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). As students practice, teachers should provide immediate corrective feedback and offer praise or tangible reinforcers. To motivate students to “beat their own time,” teachers can help them graph or chart their own performance. Students should be encouraged to assist in setting their own goals, monitoring their own progress, and selecting their own reinforcers. To listen to students reading aloud, teachers may work with small groups of students at a time. Teachers may also consider using paraprofessionals or tutors. Partner reading or peer tutoring can also be an effective way to maximize engaged practice time and to provide a live model (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Mathes & Fuchs, 1994). In partner reading or peer tutoring, a higher-ability reader, often called a coach, is paired with a lower-ability reader. The coach reads first to provide a fluent model, and the lower-ability reader follows, with help from the coach when needed. One type of classwide peer tutoring that has been widely researched as a supplement to core reading programs is Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997; see also Fuchs, Fuchs, Al Otaiba, et al., 2001; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes & Hodge, 1995). During PALS, students help each other practice phonetic

Table 1. Materials for Fluency Practice Program

Web site

Material provided

Great Leaps

http://www.greatleaps.com/

Provides words in lists, phrases, and passages from kindergarten to adult

Quick Reads

http://www.pearsonlearning.com/mcp/quickreads.cfm

Provides passages on social studies and science themes with reading levels from second to fifth grades

Read Naturally

http://www.readnaturally.com/

Provides passages from kindergarten through adult reading levels. Also a good source of multicultural passages and passages in Spanish

146 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

skills and engage in partner reading. In a study conducted in a self-contained classroom for students with E/BD using Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (K-PALS; Fuchs, Fuchs, Al Otaiba, et al., 2001), kindergarten students with E/BD improved their fluency in two important prereading skills: letter–sound naming and blending sounds (Falk & Wehby, 2001). How can teachers carefully monitor students’ progress in oral reading fluency? How can teachers plan and fine-tune fluency instruction for students with E/BD? How will teachers know if their students are catching up? Several research-validated means of collecting data exist to help teachers plan fluency instruction and monitor individual students’ progress.

Plan Instruction and Monitor Progress Using Data Teachers can administer brief oral reading fluency measures to measure the number of words a student can read aloud in 1 minute using Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). Researchers have established that oral reading fluency measures have good reliability (e.g., Marston, 1989), that performance on oral reading fluency measures is closely related to performance on reading comprehension measures (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, et al., 2001), and that performance on oral reading fluency is predictive of high-stakes testing (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001). Furthermore, oral reading fluency is sensitive enough to monitor students’ progress across time (Good et al., 2001). Hasbrouk and Tindal (1992) published a list of gradelevel benchmarks for oral reading fluency. Examples of commercially available CBM oral reading fluency tools that offer multiple probes that allow teachers to monitor progress frequently include the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) and the Monitoring Basic Skills Program (MBSP; Fuchs, Hamlet, & Fuchs, 1997). The authors of DIBELS provide benchmarks that help teachers formulate goals and evaluate student progress toward those goals. The DIBELS benchmarks correlate with student performance on high-stakes reading tests. The oral reading fluency measures we just described all have standardized procedures and directions. The teacher asks a student to read three passages, determines the number of words read correctly in 1 minute, and records the median, or middle, score. Words are correct if they are pronounced correctly within 3 s. Errors include hesitations of longer than 3 s, omissions, substitutions, reversals, and mispronunciations. Teachers of young students may prefer DIBELS prereading fluency measures, which address phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge. The DIBELS measures were found to be a sensitive indicator of progress following intervention in a study including students with E/BD (Kamps et al., 2003). Pas-

sages available from DIBELS and MBSP span first through sixth grades. In addition, Espin and Tindal (1998) provide guidelines for developing CBM materials for secondary students. At least three additional assessments measure oral reading fluency and also provide standard scores that allow teachers to compare children’s scores against national norms. The Grey Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4; Wiederholt & Bryant, 2003) is a commonly used standardized test of oral reading fluency in passages. The Test of Oral Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) assesses fluency of single word and non-word reading efficiency. These two measures have only two alternate forms and, therefore, are less suited to repeated progress monitoring. In addition, a number of informal assessments may be used, such as informal reading inventories (Johnson, Kress, & Pikulski, 1987), running records (Clay, 1972) or miscue analysis (Goodman & Burke, 1972), although these assessments provide neither benchmarks nor national norms. Teachers might ask themselves how much growth they should expect students with E/BD to make in a week. Deno, Fuchs, Marston, and Shinn (2001) found sufficient evidence to suggest a growth rate of two words per week is reasonable for first-grade students with learning disabilities and one word a week for older students. Thus, teachers can develop realistic fluency goals for students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and monitor students’ progress toward achieving those goals. If students are not making adequate progress, teachers can adjust instructional methods or materials, such as providing additional small group instruction to increase the intensity of fluency instruction (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). Teachers may also need to examine students’ patterns of reading errors to identify phonics skills that students may lack. For example, many older students have memorized words by sight but may struggle to decode words phonetically when they have more than one syllable. Or, from a behavioral perspective, teachers may wish to “up

VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 147

Table 2. Resources for Research-Based Reading Interventions Web site

Purpose of the site

www.fcrr.org

The purpose of the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) is to disseminate information about research-based practices related to literacy instruction and assessment for children in preschool through 12th grade. The Center has conducted careful reviews of reading programs, which are available under “FCRR Reports.”

http://w-w-c.org/index.html

The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Through a set of easily accessible Webbased databases, the WWC provides decisionmakers with the information they need to make choices based on high-quality scientific research.

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/news.html#guide

The purpose of this site is to assist educators in finding and using strategies that have been validated in rigorous studies. This site allows users to order the Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) user-friendly guide: Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence. The 19-page publication offers evaluation factors to help determine the effectiveness of educational reading interventions and new educational technologies.

the ante” and offer additional reinforcement, such as free time contingent upon improved and oral fluency reading rate. We also wish to offer several Web-based resources for reviews of additional reading instructional intervention; these are listed in Table 2. Additionally, teachers may consult the school’s reading coach or reading specialist and ask for assistance in learning how to deliver guided oral fluency instruction.

Conclusion Frequently, students with E/BD engage in behavioral repertoires that represent an obstacle to their learning because they do not possess the necessary skills to cope with academic expectations in school (Kern, Delaney, Clarke, Dunlap, & Childs, 2001). Therefore, teachers need ways to differentiate effective reading instruction using behavioral components and ways to track student progress. Such instruction is in line with the NCLB requirement that classroom teachers use scientifically based research practices. This article has addressed several potentially important and relatively easy ways for teachers to individualize guided oral reading fluency instruction for students with E/BD. These suggestions do not imply that teachers should neglect the other four components of scientifically based reading research, namely phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, or comprehension. However, individualized guided oral reading fluency instruction, especially when individualized using behavioral strategies, can play an important role in helping students with E/BD catch up to their peers in reading.

ABOUT

THE

AUTHORS

Stephanie Al Otaiba, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education at Florida State University and is on the research fac148 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

ulty at the Florida Center for Reading Research. Her research interests include early intervention to prevent reading difficulties, teacher preparation and professional development, and cultural and linguistic diversity. Mabel O. Rivera, PhD, is an assistant professor of special education in the Department of Childhood, Reading, and Disability Services at Florida State University. She is a former teacher of students with emotional/ behavioral disorders. Her current professional interests include teaching reading to students with emotional/behavioral disorders and preventing reading difficulties. Address: Stephanie Al Otaiba, City Centre, Building 227, N. Bronough St., Ste. 7250, Tallahassee, FL 32301.

REFERENCES Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Browder, D. M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. (1988). An evaluation of transfer of stimulus control in sight word reading for children with mental retardation and emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review, 17(2), 331–342. Carver, R. P., & Hoffman, J. V. (1981). The effect of practice through repeated reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based instructional system. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 374–390. Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406. Clay, M. (1972). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand: Heineman. Cochran, L., Feng, H., Cartledge, G., & Hamilton, S. (1993). The effects of cross-age peer tutoring on the academic achievement, social behaviors, and self-perceptions of low-achieving African-American males with behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 25, 93–104. Coleman, M., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Reading interventions for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 93–104. Countinho, M. (1986). Reading achievement of students identified as behaviorally disordered at the secondary level. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 200–207. Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105–113. Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shinn, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for

students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524. Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second grade transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389–406. Espin, C., & Tindal, J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214–253). New York: Guilford. Falk, K. B., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on the beginning reading skills of young children with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 344–359. Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Al Otaiba, S., Thompson, A., Yen, L., McMaster, K. N., et al. (2001). K-PALS: Helping kindergartners with reading readiness: Teachers and researchers in partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 76–80. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239– 256. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peerassisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlet, C., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Monitoring basic skill progress. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement. Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory: Procedure for diagnosis and correction. New York: Macmillan. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383. Hasbrouk, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41–44. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (26) (amended 1997, 2004) Johnson, M. S., Kress, R. A., & Pikulski, J. J. (1987). Informal reading inventories (2nd ed.). Newark, IL: International Reading Association. Kamps, D. M., Wills, H. P., Greenwood, C. R., Thorne, S., Lazo, J. F., Crockett, J. L., et al. (2003). Curriculum influences on growth in early reading fluency for students with academic and behavioral risks: A descriptive study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 211–224. Kauffman, J. E., Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1987). Characteristics of students placed in special programs for the seriously emotionally disturbed. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 175–184. Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 239–247. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.

Levy, S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). An observational study of teachers’ reading instruction of students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27(3), 215–235. Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford. Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 278– 283, 292. Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for student with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23, 59–80. Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. C., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 179–189. Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new direction. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283– 306. Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., & Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status and trends of academic research for students with emotional disturbance. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 273–287. National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. (2003). Youth with disabilities: A changing population. A report of the findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Study-2 (NTLS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002). Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50, 376–381. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (The Guilford school practitioner series). New York: Guilford Press. Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 387–408. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003). Research on the academic status of children with emotional and behavioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961 to 2000. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 198–210. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–13. Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2003). Gray oral reading tests (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 149