. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Jan 12.

Published in final edited form as: Rev Educ Res. 2009 Mar 1;79(1):262–300. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325998

TABLE 2.

Outcomes by intervention type and design

Intervention	Measure	Findings/Results
Comprehension: T-C
Alfassi (1998) T (reciprocal teaching): Working in small groups, students read text aloud, generated questions, summarized the text for their peers, discussed and clarified difficulties, and made predictions (n = 53). C (current practices): School’s typical remedial reading instruction consisting of skills acquisition (n = 22).	Comprehension questions on taught passages Gates-MacGinitie Vocabulary subtest (standardized) Gates-MacGinitie Comprehension subtest (standardized)	T vs. C ES = 1.04^a (p < .05) T vs. C ES = 0.16^a (ns) T vs. C ES = 0.35^a (ns)
Anderson, Chan, & Henne (1995) T (strategy instruction): Four-phase instructional cycle that included (a) previewing, text reading, and comprehension monitoring; (b) analyzing text type and structure; (c) writing related to reading using text structure facilitators; and (d) generating questions and researching answers to enhance writing (n = 10). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 7).	SAT Comprehension (standardized) Summary^b Wonderings (no. and complexity of questions generated)	T vs. C ES = 1.16^a (p < .05) T vs. C ES = 2.08^a (p < .05) T vs. C ES = 0.80^a (ns)
Chan (1996) T1 (reading strategy plus successive attributional training): Instruction in a clustering-rehearsal strategy on a sort-recall task (nonreading) before combining self-questioning strategy instruction with attributional training on a reading task. Attributional training involved having students compare pre- and posttest results and attributing (aloud) the improvement to the strategy (n = 11). T2 (reading strategy plus simultaneous attributional training): A sort-recall task with no clustering-rehearsal strategy followed by the combined self-questioning strategy and attributional training on the reading task (n = 9). T3 (attributional training only): Attributional training in the use of the clustering-rehearsal strategy on the sort-recall task (n = 11). T4 (strategy training only): Strategy training in both clustering-rehearsal and self-questioning without attributional training (n = 9).	Short-answer comprehension test (no. correct)	T1 vs. T2 ES = 1.34^a T1 vs. T3 ES = 1.68^a T1 vs. T4 ES=1.50^a T2 vs. T3 ES = 0.34^a T3 vs. T4 T2 vs. T4 ES = .16*
DiCecco & Gleason (2002) T (graphic organizers): Direct instruction using a graphic organizer of concept relationships (n = 12). C (no graphic organizer): Instruction in the same content using guided discussions and note taking (n = 12).	Multiple-choice content knowledge test Fact recall Number of relational knowledge statements essays	ES = −0.18* T vs. C ES = 0.50 (ns) T vs. C ES = 0.08 (ns) T vs. C ES = 1.68 (p < .01)
Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin (2000) T (main idea): Main-idea strategy instruction using prompt cards and self-monitoring (n = 18). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 15).	Main idea: Trained passages (identification/production of main idea statements) Main idea: Near transfer (similar narrative passages) Main idea: Far transfer (expository passages)	T vs. C ES =2.23^a T vs. C ES = 2.57^a T vs. C ES = 1.84^a
Klingner & Vaughn (1996) T1 (reciprocal teaching + tutoring): Reciprocal teaching plus peer tutoring on comprehension strategies (n = 13). T2 (reciprocal teaching + cooperative learning): Reciprocal teaching plus strategy practice in cooperative learning groups (n = 13).	Gates MacGinitie Comprehension subtest (standardized) Passage comprehension test (% correct)	T1 vs. T2 ES = −1.42^a T1 vs. T2 ES = 0.35^a
Moore & Scevack (1995) T (SLIC [summarize, link, image, check]): Explicit instruction in a set of strategies-summarize text, link text and visual aids, visually depict the relationship(s), and check for understanding (n = 11). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 10).	Free recall (no. of details) Free recall (no. of main ideas) Multiple-choice comprehension test Transfer: Free recall details Transfer: Free recall main idea Transfer: Multiple-choice test	T v. C ES = −0.57 T vs. C ES = 0.07 T vs. C ES = −0.37 T vs. C ES = −0.39 T vs. C ES = −0.56 T vs. C ES = −0.36
Wilder & Williams (2001) T1 (theme identification): Scaffolded instruction that included a prereading discussion, reading the story, postreading discussions guided by organizing questions, identifying the story theme, and relating the theme to real-life experiences (n = 47). T2 (story comprehension): Comprehension instruction emphasizing vocabulary and plot through teacher-generated questions and discussion (n = 44).	Transfer: Story details in novel text (no. recalled) Transfer: Story components in novel text (main ideas) Theme concepts (understanding explicitly taught themes) Theme identification Theme application Vocabulary definitions Using vocabulary in sentences	T1 vs. T2 ES = 0.41 (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = 0.59 (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = 1.68 (p < .05) T1 vs. T2 ES = 5.93 (p < .01) T1 vs. T2 ES = 1.74 (p < .01) T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.25 T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.55
Williams, Brown, Silverstein, & deCani (1994) T1 (themes instruction): Scaffolded instruction in prereading discussion, reading the story, participating in discussions guided by organizing questions, identifying the story theme, and relating that theme to real-life experiences (n = 53). T2 (basal reading instruction): Instruction on the same content using a basal reader series adapted to the structure of prereading discussion, vocabulary development, story reading, and postreading discussion (n = 40).	Theme concept (understanding explicitly taught theme) Theme identification Theme application	T1 v. T2 ES = 1.41 (p < .001) T1 vs. T2 ES = 2.08^a (p < .001) T1 v. T2 ES = 2.95^a

Comprehension: Single group

MacArthur & Haynes (1995) T (SALT [Student Assistance for Learning from Text]): Hypermedia versions of textbooks that provided either basic word recognition/decoding and vocabulary support or an enhanced version with additional support (question windows, glossary, teacher comments, and speech synthesis) for comprehending expository text (n = 10).	Short-answer and matching comprehension test	T_enhanced vs. T_basic ES = 0.88 (not converted) (p < .05)

Comprehension: Single subject

Gardhill & Jitendra (1999) T (Advanced story map construction): Explicit instruction in story grammar elements; phases included model, lead, and independent practice (n = 6).	M1: Story retell		PND (%)
		Student	M1	M2
		Marvin	100	63
		Mark	100	25
	M2: Basal comprehension test	Chad	100	25
		Mitch	100	13
		Tara	100	88
		Jack	100	100
Lauterbach & Bender in ref (1995) T (read, ask and paraphrase strategy): Students taught to read the paragraph, identify the main idea and two details, and rewrite them in their own words (n = 3).	Paraphrasing (% correct)
				PND (%)
		A		91
		B		92
	Multiple-choice comprehension test (seventh-, eighth- and ninth-grade-levele materials)	C		100
			Seventh	Eighth		Ninth
		A	33	0		33
		B	100	100		100
Vallecorsa & deBettencourt (1997) T (story mapping): Explicit instruction in eight story elements (definitions and multiple examples) and depicting story elements on a story map (n = 3).	Retell (no. of story elements included in retell)	C	0	0		0
		Student		PND (%)
		David		67
		Jason		100
		Nick		83

Fluency: T-C

Allinder, Dunse, Brunken, & Obermiller-Krolikowski (2001) T (fluency strategy instruction): Students taught to focus on using one or more of the following strategies during a read-aloud conference: reading with inflection, self-monitoring for accuracy, reading at an appropriate pace, watching for word endings, and finger tracking (n = 33). C (no strategy instruction): Students encouraged to do their best while reading aloud (n = 16).	WJRM Word Identification (standardized) WJRM Word Attack (standardized) WJRM Comprehension (standardized) Slope on maze task	T vs. C ES = −0.02 T vs. C ES = 0.08 T vs. C ES = −0.03 T vs. C ES = 0.79

Fluency: Single group

Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, & Lane (2000) T1 (Great Leaps reading program): Instruction in sight phrases and oral reading with graphing of oral reading fluency for 19–25 months (n = 11). T2: T1 for 10–18 months (n = 19). T3: T1 for 6–9 months (n = 19).	CBM oral reading fluency	T1 ES = 0.37^c T2 ES = 0.13 T3 ES = 0.24

Fluency: Single subject

Daly & Martens (1994) T1 (subject passage preview): Student read a passage with feedback from instructor (n = 2). T2 (taped words): Student read along with an audio-taped word list (n = 2). T3 (listening passage preview): Student listened to an audio-taped passage while following along silently (n = 2).	Words read correctly per minute: Passage		PND (%)
	Words read correctly per minute: Passage		T1	T2	T3
	Words read correctly per minute: Word list	S3	100	57	57
		S4	100	57	14
		S3	43	29	29
		S4	57	86	71
Freeland, Skinner, Jackson, McDaniel, & Smith (2000) T (repeated reading): Repeated oral passage reading (two reads) with error correction by the teacher (n = 3). Baseline (silent reading): Silent passage reading (two reads) (n = 3).	CBM comprehension questions	Student		PND (%)^d
	CBM fluency rate	Jason		71
		Bill		29
		Chris		86
		Jason		14
		Bill		57
		Chris		57
Valleley & Shriver (2003) T (repeated readings): Engage in repeated readings in which the student rereads the same passage until he or she exhibits three consecutive fluency improvements.	Comprehension questions (no. correct, n = 10)	S1		6–10
	Comprehension questions (no. correct, n = 10)	S2		4–10
	Oral reading fluency	S3		6–10
				PND (%)
		S1		12
		S2		24
		S3		17
Word study: T-C
Abbott & Berninger (1999) T1 (structural analysis): Instruction in the alphabetic principle, phonological decoding (applied phonics and structural analysis), structural analysis focused on affixes and suffixes, and repeated oral reading with error correction (using structural analysis) and comprehension monitoring (n = 10). T2 (study skills): T1 with synthetic phonics strategies (i.e., letter-sound correspondence) and study skills instruction (workbook pages on note taking, outlining, and paragraph writing) in place of structural analysis instruction and application (n = 10).	WRMT-R: Comprehension (standardized) WRMT-R Word Identification (standardized) WRMT-R Word Attack (standardized) Qualitative Reading Inventory (standardized) TOWRE (standardized) TOWRE Pseudowords (standardized)	T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.12^a (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.17^a (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.08^a (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = 0.19^a (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = −0.31^a (ns) T1 vs. T2 ES = 0.04^a (ns)
Bhat, Griffin, & Sindelair (2003) T (Great Leaps reading program + phonemic awareness): Phonological and phonemic awareness lessons from Great Leaps reading program supplemented with additional phonemic awareness activities, including phoneme blending, segmenting, reversal, and substitution (n = 20). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 20).	CTOPp (standardized) WRMT Word Identification (standardized)	T vs. C ES = 1.59^a (p < .001) T vs. C ES = 0.15^a (ns)
Bhattacharya & Ehri (2004) T1 (syllable chunking strategy): Students were taught to orally divide multisyllabic words into syllables, state the number of syllables, match them to their spelling, and blend the syllables to say the whole word. Corrective feedback was provided after each step (n = 20). T2 (whole-word reading): Students practiced reading multisyllabic words with no applied strategy. Corrective feedback was provided (n = 20). C1 (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 20).	WRMT-R Word Attack (standardized) Syllable segmentation Decoding words Decoding subtle misspellings Decoding pseudowords by analogy	T1 vs. C ES = 1.40 T2 vs. C ES = 0.43 T1 vs. C ES = 1.14 T2 vs. C ES = 0.20 T2 vs. C ES = 0.20 T1 vs. C ES = 0.65 T2 vs. C ES = 0.42 T1 vs. C ES = 1.14 T2 vs. C ES = 0.51 T1 vs. C ES = 0.50
Penney (2002) T (phonemic decoding): Students read aloud from text; words read slowly or incorrectly were then taught using the Glass analysis method of rehearsing the pronunciation of letter sequences that form pronounceable parts of words (n = 21). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 11).	PPVT (standardized) WRMT Word Identification (standardized) WRMT Word Attack WRMT Passage Comprehension	T2 vs. C ES = 0.03 T vs. C ES = 0.82 T vs. C ES = 0.48^a (p < .001) T vs. C ES = 0.43^a (p < .05) T vs. C ES = 0.65^a (p < .001)

Multicomponent: T-C

L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan (1999) T (peer-assisted learning strategies [PALS]): Partner reading, paragraph shrinking, and prediction relay implemented using a dyadic structure (n = 52). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction with no peer-mediated learning activities (n = 50).	CRAB Oral Reading Fluency (standardized) CRAB Comprehension	T vs. C ES = 0.05 T vs. C ES = 0.31
Hasselbring & Goin (2004) T (computer-based literacy instruction): Instruction in Peabody Literacy Lab: Reading Lab, with videos to support students in building mental models from text; Word Lab, with practice reading words on timed tasks; Spelling Lab, with practice typing a word that is pronounced, broken into parts, and used in a sentence plus additional spelling fluency practice (n = 63). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 62).	SDRT Comprehension (standardized) SDRT Auditory Vocabulary (standardized) SDRT Phonetic Analysis (standardized) SDRT Structural Analysis (standardized)	T vs. C ES = 1.00^a T vs. C ES = 0.75^a T vs. C ES = 0.23^a T vs. C ES = 0.44^a
Mastropieri et al. (2001) T (peer tutoring condition): Partner reading with error correction, passage summarization (“Get the Gist”), and questioning strategies for during and after reading implemented using same-age peer tutoring sessions (n = 12). C (current practices): School’s typical reading instruction (n = 12).	Open-ended comprehension test	T vs. C ES = 1.18 (p < .05)

Multicomponent: Single group

Bryant et al. (2000) T (collaborative strategic reading [CSR] + word reading strategy and fluency): Instruction in the four main components of CSR-predicting, word learning strategies (e.g., using context clues), finding the main idea, and summarizing-plus a word identification strategy (DISSECT) and structured partner reading (n = 14).	Word identification test of oral reading fluency (standardized) Jamestown Timed Reading Passage Comprehension questions (no. correct)	T ES = 0.64 (unconverted) (p < .05) T ES = 0.67 (p < .05) T ES = 0.22

Multicomponent: Single subject

Scott & Shearer-Lingo (2002) T1 (Teach Your Child): Phonics instruction with teacher modeling of letter-sound relationships and opportunities for guided practice (n = 3). T2 (Great Leaps reading program): 1-min timings of letter sounds, sight phrases, and story reading with teacher monitoring (n = 3).	Oral reading fluency		PND (%)
		Student	T1	T2
		Tony	100	100
		Billy	100	95
		John	0	100
Steventon & Frederick (2003) T (corrective reading + repeated reading): Explicit decoding instruction using the Corrective Reading program plus repeated reading (n = 1).	Oral reading fluency		PND (%)
		Carl: Practiced text	54
		Carl: Novel text	8
Strong, Wehby, Falk, & Lane (2004) T1 (corrective reading): Instruction in decoding strategies through lessons that consist of word attack skills, group reading, and workbook exercises (n = 6). T2 (corrective reading + repeated reading): T1 plus partner reading with teacher-provided corrective feedback during first two reads and partner-provided feedback for the subsequent read (n = 6).	SRA probes (words correct per minute)		PND (%)
		Student	T1	T2
		Jim	29	92
		Dave	29	100
		Joe	55	83
		Mike	45	100
		Steve	93	100
		Jay	40	75

Note. T = treatment; C = comparison; ES = effect size; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data; SAT = Stanford Achievement Test; WJRM = Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery; CBM = curriculum-based measure; WRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test; WRMT-R = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised; TOWRE = Test of Word Reading Efficiency; CTOPp = Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; CRAB = Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery; SDRT = Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test; SRA = Science Research Associates.

Indicates effect size adjusted for pretest differences.

All measures are researcher developed unless indicated by a parenthetical note (e.g., standardized).

Repeated measures effect size converted to the metric of Cohen’s d.

PND calculated as the percentage nonoverlapping data between the baseline and treatment instructional conditions for each student.