The effects of a skill-based intervention package including repeated reading and error correction on the oral reading fluency of at-risk readers

For decades, reading has been extensively studied within the field of educational research. Researchers dedicate a considerable amount of time to investigating reading, which accounts for a significant portion of all diagnosed learning disabilities. One component of reading that deserves consideration is reading fluency. Fluency, or the rate and accuracy with which a student reads, has received increasing attention within the literature. Numerous interventions exist, although few utilize combined intervention packages to augment reading fluency outcomes.^ The present investigation examined the effects of an intervention package including repeated reading and the word drill method of error correction on the oral reading fluency of at-risk readers. The study attempted to determine whether the intervention package produced greater gains in reading fluency than repeated reading alone. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the retention of gains made in fluency on untrained passages. Finally, the study examined the acceptability of each intervention.^ At the outset and throughout the study, the students\u27 reading levels were assessed and monitored using curriculum-based measurement. Data collection took place over two months, with multiple baselines and counterbalanced treatment phases across the four participants. Data points were plotted on a graph and visually examined. Effect sizes were calculated for each treatment across all participants. Short-term gains in fluency were examined from the first to the third reading of each passage. The results of high-content overlap probes were examined to determine the retention of fluency gains to untrained passages and if these gains were equivalent across both interventions. Measures of acceptability were obtained following the final session during each treatment phase. Additional measures included treatment integrity and inter-rater agreement. ^ In general, both interventions produced gains in fluency. Furthermore, the intervention package was found to produce more significant gains in fluency for three out of the four participants. Generalization of gains in fluency was evident, yet not equivalent across the two interventions. Participant acceptability ratings were high, reflecting the positive change demonstrated in reading fluency. Contributions, limitations, implications for practitioners, and recommendations for future research are presented.