Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R. (1983). The mind of the dyslexic. Annals of Dyslexia, 33, 9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Whittock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 804–849). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Stevenson, J. (2003). The development of phonological awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 913–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catts, H., Kamhi, A. (2005). Language and reading disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery. Auckland: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229–251). Baltimore, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deschler, D. D., Mellard, D. F., Tollefson, J. M., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Research topics in responsiveness to intervention: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 483–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A Handbook (pp. 135–154). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 135–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Seals, L. M., Anthony, J., & Pollard-Durodala, S. (2003). A vocabulary enrichment program for third and fourth grade African-American students: Description, implementation, and impact. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 419–441). Baltimore, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Steubing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuch, D., & Fuch, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach. In H. L. Swanson, H. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 431–449). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., & Young, C.L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., Anderson, R., Cunningham, P. M., Gaskins, R. M., Schommer, M., the teachers of the Benchmark School (1988). A metacognitive approach to phonics: Using what you know to decode what you don’t know. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 36–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, P. J., Goetz, K., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., Gibbs, S., & Smith, G. (2006). Evidence for the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, P. J., & Hulme, C. (1999). Phonemes, rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of children’s responsiveness to remedial reading instruction: Evidence from a longitudinal intervention study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skill: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G. B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1–19). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 456–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 578–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Compton, D. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 248–265). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, H. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H. W. Catts, & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A., & Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dyslexia is continuous: Individual differences in the precursors of reading skill. Child Development, 74, 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 340–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile for children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classification of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001a). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001b). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–355). Timonium, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1996). A developmental model of dyslexia: Can the construct be saved? Dyslexia, 2, 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1998). Language prediction skill, phonological recoding ability and beginning reading. In C. Hulme, & R.M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorder (pp. 33–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2003). The reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention. As good as it gets? Reading Psychology, 24, 337–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2004). Reading recovery: Distinguishing myth from reality. In R. M. Joshi (Ed.), Dyslexia: Myths, misconceptions, and some practical application (pp. 99–114). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2006). Metalinguistic abilities, phonological recoding skills, and the use of sentence context in beginning reading development: A longitudinal study. In R. M. Joshi, & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 617–635). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2007). Language-related differences between discrepancy-defined and non-discrepancy-defined poor readers: A longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia, 13, 42–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2003). Preventing negative Matthew effects in at-risk readers: A retrospective study. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 121–163). Timonium, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In M. Joshi, & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 69, 391–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification in poor, normally developing readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 571–608). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2005). Developmental dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 362–378). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two year follow-up of difficult-to-remediate, readily remediated poor readers. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 73–120). Baltimore, MD: York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (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, 39, 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Educational Studies, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

    William E. Tunmer

Authors
  1. William E. Tunmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William E. Tunmer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tunmer, W.E. Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue. Read Writ 21, 299–316 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4

Search

Navigation