CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Reading and Literacy DevelopmentBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEarly Childhood Education and Development

Current Evidence on the Effects of Intensive Early Reading Interventions

Open access
Wanzek, Jeanne, Stevens, Elizabeth A., Williams, Kelly J., Scammacca, Nancy, Vaughn, Sharon, Sargent, Katherine·2018·Journal of Learning Disabilities
DOI 10.1177/0022219418775110PMC PMC6247899
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many students at risk for or identified with reading disabilities need intensive reading interventions. This meta-analysis provides an update to the Wanzek and Vaughn synthesis on intensive early reading interventions. Effects from 25 reading intervention studies are analyzed to examine the overall effect of intensive early reading interventions as well as relationships between intervention and student characteristics related to outcomes. The weighted mean effect size (ES) estimate (ES = 0.39), with a mean effect size adjusted for publication bias (ES = 0.28), both significantly different from zero, suggested intensive early reading interventions resulted in positive outcomes for early struggling readers in kindergarten through third grades. There was no statistically significant or meaningful heterogeneity in the study-wise effect sizes. Exploratory examination of time in intervention, instructional group size, initial reading achievement, and date of publication are provided.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022219418775110

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Wanzek et al. (2018) found average effect sizes of 0.59 for one-to-one tutoring and 0.33 for small-group tutoring in the review of intensive (100 sessions or more) reading interventions for at-risk students in Grade K-3.

    “Wanzek et al. (2018) found average effect sizes of 0.59 for one‐to‐one tutoring and 0.33 for small‐group tutoring in the review of intensive (100 sessions or more) reading interventions for at‐risk students in Grade K‐3.”

    From Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with or at risk of academic difficulties in Grades K‐6: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Wanzek et al. (2018)

    The Discussion reports effect sizes of 0.59 for one-to-one instruction and 0.33 for groups of two to eight students in the meta-analysis of interventions lasting at least 100 sessions for students in Grades K–3. It does not identify the 0.33 estimate as an effect for small groups specifically; the Implications, Limitations, and Future Research section says there were too few small-group studies to examine that category separately. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Al Otaiba S, & Fuchs D (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300– 316.
  2. * Coyne MD, Little M, Rawlinson D, Simmons D, Kwok O, Kim M, & Civetelli C (2013). Replicating the impact of a supplemental beginning reading intervention: The role of instructional context. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 1– 23. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.706694 · DOI
  3. Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, & Francis DJ (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447– 466. 17004676
  4. Duval S, & Tweedie R (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455– 463. 10877304
  5. * Fien H, Smith JLM, Smolkowski K, Baker SK, Nelson NJ, & Chaparro E (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 602– 621. 24532827
  6. Fisher Z, & Tipton E (2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis Retrieved from arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02220 · arXiv
  7. Francis DJ, Shaywitz SE, Stuebing KK, Shaywitz BA, & Fletcher JM (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3– 17.
  8. Fuchs D, Compton DL, Fuchs LS, Bryant J, & Davis NG (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21, 413– 436. doi: 10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9 · DOI
  9. Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, & Vaughn S (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13– 18.
  10. * 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, 90– 103.
  11. Hagan-Burke S, Kwok OM, Zou Y, Johnson C, Simmons D, & Coyne MD (2011). An examination of problem behaviors and reading outcomes in kindergarten students. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 131– 148. doi: 10.1177/0022466909359425 · DOI
  12. * Harn BA, Linan-Thompson S, & Roberts G (2008). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk first graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 115– 125. doi: 10.1177/0022219407313586 18354932 · DOI
  13. * Hatcher PJ, Hulme C, Miles JN, Carroll JM, Hatcher J, Gibbs S,... Snowling MJ (2006). Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 820– 827. 16898996
  14. Hedges LV, Tipton E, & Johnson MC (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39– 65. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.5 26056092 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Juel C (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first to fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437– 447.
  16. Lam EA, & McMaster KL (2014). Predictors of responsiveness to early literacy intervention: A 10-year update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 134– 147. doi: 10.1177/0731948714529772 · DOI
  17. Lou Y, Abrami PC, Spence JC, Poulsen C, Chambers B, & d’Apollonia S (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423– 458.
  18. McNamara JK, Scissons M, & Gutknectch N (2011). A longitudinal study of kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities: The poor really are getting poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 421– 430. doi: 10.1177/0022219411410040 21772059 · DOI
  19. * Mathes PG, Denton CA, Fletcher JM, Anthony JL, Francis DJ, & Schatschneider C (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148– 182.
  20. * Miller SD (2003). Partners-in-reading: Using classroom assistants to provide tutorial assistance to struggling first-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 333– 349.
  21. * Morris D, Tyner B, & Perney J (2000). Early steps: Replicating the effect of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681– 693.
  22. Nelson RJ, Benner GJ, & Gonzalez J (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 255– 267.
  23. Partanen M, & Siegel LS (2014). Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 27, 665– 684. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9472-1 · DOI
  24. * Santa CM, & Hoien T (1999). An assessment of early steps: A program for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 54– 79.
  25. Scammacca N, Roberts G, Vaughn S, & Stuebing K (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369– 390. doi: 10.1177/0022219413504995 24092916 PMC3975734 · DOI · Paper page
  26. * Schneider W, Roth E, & Ennemoser M (2000). Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 284– 295.
  27. Simmons DC, Coyne MD, Kwok O, McDonagh S, Harn BA, & Kame’enui EJ (2008). Indexing response to inter-vention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158– 173. doi: 10.1177/0022219407313587 18354935 · DOI
  28. * Simmons DC, Kame’enui EJ, Harn B, Coyne MD, Stoolmiller M, Santoro LE,... Kaufman NK (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 331– 347. 17713132
  29. Stanovich KE (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360– 407.
  30. Swanson HL, Hoskyn M, & Lee C (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  31. Tipton E (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20, 375– 393. doi: 10.1037/met000001 24773356 · DOI
  32. Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KS, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33– 58, 78. 15497271
  33. * Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Herron J, & Lindamood P (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 40– 56. 20052566 PMC2888606
  34. * Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Rose E, Lindamood P, & Conway T (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing dis-abilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579– 593.
  35. * Vadasy PF, Sanders EA, & Peyton JA (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 364– 380. 16122070
  36. Vaughn S, Denton CA, & Fletcher JM (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432– 444. doi: 10.1002/pits 21072127 PMC2975106 · DOI
  37. Vaughn S, & Linan-Thompson S (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140– 147.
  38. * Vaughn S, Mathes P, Linan-Thompson S, Cirino P, Carlson C, Pollard-Durodola S,... Francis D (2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 153– 180. doi: 10.1086/510653 16512083 · DOI
  39. Vaughn S, & Wanzek J (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 46– 53. 24910504 PMC4043370
  40. Vaughn S, Zumeta R, Wanzek J, Cook B, & Klingner JK (2014). Intensive interventions for students with learning disabilities in the RTI era: Position statement of the Division for Learning Disabilities Council for Exceptional Children. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29, 90– 92. PMC4043370 24910504
  41. Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Small S, & Fanuele DP (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 157– 169. 16583795
  42. * Wang C, & Algozzine B (2008). Effects of targeted interven-tion on early literacy skills of at-risk students. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22, 425– 439. doi: 10.1080/02568540809594637 · DOI
  43. Wanzek J, & Vaughn S (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541– 561.
  44. Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, & Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K–3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551– 576. 27594774 PMC5007082
  45. Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca NK, Metz K, Murrary CS, Roberts G, & Danielson L (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163– 195. doi: 10.3102/0034654313477212 · DOI
  46. Wanzek J, Wexler J, Vaughn S, & Ciullo S (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 8, 889– 912. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5 PMC2975107 21072128 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Wanzek, Jeanne
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-05-21
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
612-624
ISSN
  • 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4780
DOI
10.1177/0022219418775110
PMC
PMC6247899
OpenAlex
W2804447009
Cited by
189
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
FWCI
27.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Learning Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks Open (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Grantee Submission
Funders
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R324A150269)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50 HD052117)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
intensive reading intervention, early reading instruction, reading disorders, struggling readers, early elementary education, intervention effectiveness, effect size, publication bias
MeSH terms
Dyslexia, Humans, Remedial Teaching, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review