Technology-assisted reading fluency interventions for students with reading difficulties: evidence from a meta-analytic approach of single case design studies

References

• Calet N, Gutiérrez-Palma N, Defior S. Effects of fluency training on reading competence in primary school children: the role of prosody. Learn Instr. 2017;52:59–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alber-Morgan SR, Matheson Ramp E, Anderson LL, et al. Effects of repeated readings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency and comprehension of Middle school students with behavior problems. J Spec Educ. 2007;41(1):17–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor RE. Reading fluency and students with reading disabilities: How fast is fast enough to promote reading comprehension? J Learn Disabil. 2018;51(2):124–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suggate SP. A Meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. J Learn Disabil. 2016;49(1):77–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odom SL, Thompson JL, Hedges S, et al. Technology-Aided Interventions and Instruction for Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(12):3805–3819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allor JH, Chard DJ. A comprehensive approach to improving reading fluency for students with disabilities. Focus except Child. 2011;43(5):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Chard DJ, Vaughn S, Tyler B-J. A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2002;35(5):386–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange AA. Technology, instructional methods, and the systemic messiness of innovation: improving reading fluency for low socio-economic elementary school students. Education Tech Research Dev. 2019;67(5):1333–1350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowley K, McLaughlin T, Kahn R. Using direct instruction flashcards and reading racetracks to improve sight word recognition of two elementary students with autism. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2013;25(3):297–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seok S, Dacosta B, Yu BM. Spelling practice intervention: a comparison of tablet PC and picture cards as spelling practice methods for students with developmental disabilities. Autism Other Dev Disabl. 2015;50(1):84–94.
   Google Scholar
• Thoermer A, Williams L. Using digital texts to promote fluent reading. Read Teach. 2012;65(7):441–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haßler B, Major L, Hennessy S. Tablet use in schools: a critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes: Tablet use in schools: a critical review. J Comput Assist Learn. 2016;32(2):139–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant BR, Kim MK, Ok MW, et al. A comparison of the effects of reading interventions on engagement and performance for fourth-grade students with learning disabilities. Behav Modif. 2015;39(1):167–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mize M, Bryant DP, Bryant BR. Teaching reading to students with learning disabilities: Effects of combined iPad-assisted and peer-assisted instruction on oral reading fluency performance. Assist Technol. 2019;14:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Özbek AB, Girli A. The effectiveness of a tablet computer-aided intervention program for improving reading fluency. ujer. 2017;5(5):757–764.
   Google Scholar
• Wu S, Gadke DL. Improving oral reading fluency in elementary school children: Comparing the effectiveness of repeated readings and video self-modeling. Sch Psychol Forum. 2017;11(3):91–104.
   Google Scholar
• Perelmutter B, McGregor KK, Gordon KR. Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: an evidence-based systematic review and Meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2017;114:139–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson I, Nordström T, Lindeblad E, et al. Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(2):196–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim MS, Blair K-SC, Lim KW. Using tablet assisted social Stories™ to improve classroom behavior for adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(9):2241–2251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J, Yoon SY. The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: a Meta-analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2017;50(2):213–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edmonds MS, Vaughn S, Wexler J, et al. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Rev Educ Res. 2009;79(1):262–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens EA, Walker MA, Vaughn S. The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: a synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. J Learn Disabil. 2017;50(5):576–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therrien WJ. Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: a Meta-analysis. Remedial Spec Educ. 2004;25(4):252–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin CR, Wanzek J, Scammacca NK, et al. The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: a Meta-analysis. Except Child. 2019;85(3):347–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung ACK, Slavin RE. Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: a best-evidence synthesis. Read Res Q. 2013;48(3):277–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo D, Zhang S, Wright KL, et al. Do you get the picture? A Meta-analysis of the effect of graphics on reading comprehension. AERA Open. 2020;6(1):1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim MK, McKenna JW, Park Y. The use of computer-assisted instruction to improve the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities: an evaluation of the evidence base according to the what works clearinghouse standards. Remedial Spec Educ. 2017;38(4):233–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stetter ME, Hughes MT. Using story grammar to assist students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties improve their comprehension. Educ Treat Children. 2010;33(1):115–151.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson E, Hairrell A, Kent S, et al. A synthesis and Meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 2014;47(2):178–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SG, Moxley JH, Tighe EL, et al. Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2018;51(1):73–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• What Works Clearinghouse. What Words Clearing House Standards Handbook, Version 4.1. 2020. Available from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Clinton V. Reading from paper compared to screens: a systematic review and Meta‐analysis: Screen and paper reading. J Res Read. 2019;42(2):288–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barber M, Cartledge G, Council IIM, et al. The effects of computer-assisted culturally relevant repeated reading on english language learners’ fluency and comprehension. Learn Disabil Contemp J. 2018;16(2):205–229.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman MB, Heller KW. The use of repeated reading with computer modeling to promote reading fluency with students who have physical disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2010;25(1):29–41.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin R, Kamei-Hannan C. Paper or digital text: Which reading medium is best for students with visual impairments? J Vis Impair Blind. 2018;112(4):337–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seiler A, Leitão S, Blosfelds M. WordDriver-1: evaluating the efficacy of an app-supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment: evaluation of worddriver-1. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(2):189–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer Version 4.4. - Extract data from plots, images, and maps [Computer Software]. 2020. Available from: https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle MA, Samaha AL, Rodewald AM, et al. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of GraphClick as a data extraction program. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29(3):1023–1027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannest KJ, Parker RI, Gonen O, et al. Single Case Research: web based calculators for SCR analysis. (Version 2.0) Web-based application. 2016. Available from: http://singlecaseresearch.org.
   Google Scholar
• Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL, et al. Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behav Ther. 2011;42(2):284–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rispoli MJ, Davis HS, Goodwyn FD, et al. The use of trial-based functional analysis in public school classrooms for two students with developmental disabilities. J Posit Behav Interv. 2013;15(3):180–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 system [Computer software]. 2014. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish WR, Zelinsky NAM, Vevea JL, et al. A survey of publication practices of single-case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016;49(3):656–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gage NA, Cook BG, Reichow B. Publication bias in special education Meta-analyses. Except Child. 2017;83(4):428–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, et al. Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Thomas J, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Standards information network. 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
   Google Scholar
• Bennett JG, Gardner R, Cartledge G, et al. Second-grade urban learners: Preliminary findings for a computer-assisted, culturally relevant, repeated reading intervention. Educ Treat Child. 2017;40(2):145–185.
   Google Scholar
• Council MR, Cartledge G, Green D, et al. Reducing risk through a supplementary reading intervention: A case study of first- AND second-grade urban students. Behav Disord. 2016;41(4):241–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council MR, Gardner R, Cartledge G, et al. Improving reading within an urban elementary school: computerized intervention and paraprofessional factors. Prev Sch Fail Alt Educ Child Youth. 2019;63(2):162–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards NM, Lambros KM. Video self-modeling as a reading fluency intervention for dual language learners with disabilities. Contemp School Psychol. 2018;22(4):468–478.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald NS, Miller SP, Higgins K, et al. Exploring the efficacy of online strategy instruction for improving the reading abilities of students with learning disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2012;27(1):33–47.
   Google Scholar
• Keyes S, Jacobs J, Bornhorst R, et al. Supplemental computerized reading instruction in oral reading fluency and its generalizable effects on at-risk urban second graders. Read Improv. 2017:54(1):9–18.
   Google Scholar
• Young MC, Courtad CA, Douglas KH, et al. The effects of text-TO-speech on reading outcomes for secondary students with learning disabilities. J Spec Educ Technol. 2019;34(2):80–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson L, Cartledge G, Keyes SE, et al. The effects of a supplementary computerized fluency intervention on the generalization of the oral reading fluency and comprehension of first-grade students. Educ Treat Children. 2014;37(1):25–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyes SE, Cartledge G, Gibson L, et al. Programming for generalization of oral reading fluency using computer-assisted instruction and changing fluency criteria. Educ Treat Children. 2016;39(2):141–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mize M, Park Y. iPad‐assisted reading fluency instruction for fourth graders with reading difficulties: a single case experimental design. J Comput Assist Learn. 2021;37(2):500–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter CJ. A trim and fill examination of the extent of publication bias in communication research. Commun Methods Meas. 2012;6(1):41–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson A, Koh PW, Moore KA, et al. Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: a synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Educ Sci (Basel). 2020;10(3):52–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim MK, Bryant DP, Bryant BR, et al. A synthesis of interventions for improving oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning disabilities. Prev Sch Fail. 2017;61(2):116–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker RI, Vannest K. An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. Behav Ther. 2009;40(4):357–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins JR, Hudson RF, Johnson ES. Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psych Rev. 2007;36(4):582–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich KE. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. SELECTIONS. 1986;21(4):360–407.
   Google Scholar
• Mize M, Park Y, Schramm-Possinger M, et al. Developing a rubric for evaluating reading applications for learners with reading difficulties. Interv Sch Clin. 2020;55(3):145–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K, Chen X. An emergent interaction between reading fluency and vocabulary in the prediction of reading comprehension among french immersion elementary students. Read Writ. 2019;32(7):1657–1679.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ok M, Kim M, Kang E, et al. How to find good apps: an evaluation rubric for instructional apps for teaching students with learning disabilities. Interv Sch Clin. 2016;51(4):244–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busacca ML, Anderson A, Moore DW. Self-management for primary school students demonstrating problem behavior in regular classrooms: Evidence review of single-case design research. J Behav Educ. 2015;24(4):373–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair KS, Park EY, Kim WH. A Meta‐analysis of tier 2 interventions implemented within school‐wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Psychol Schs. 2021;58(1):141–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggin DM, Pustejovsky JE, Johnson AH. A Meta-analysis of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: an update. Remedial Spec Educ. 2017;38(6):353–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossart DF, Laird VC, Armstrong TW. Interpreting Kendall’s tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychol. 2018;5(1):1518687–1518620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zutell J, Rasinski TV. Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory Pract. 1991;30(3):211–217.
   Google Scholar
• Bigozzi L, Tarchi C, Vagnoli L, et al. Reading fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4–9. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasinski TV. Creating fluent readers. Educ Lead. 2004;(6):46–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar