Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Jul-Aug;48(4):369-90.
doi: 10.1177/0022219413504995. Epub 2013 Oct 3.

A Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 4-12: 1980-2011

Nancy K Scammacca  1 , Greg Roberts  2 , Sharon Vaughn  2 , Karla K Stuebing  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 4-12: 1980-2011

Nancy K Scammacca et al. J Learn Disabil. 2015 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

This meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4 through 12 published between 1980 and 2011. It updates Scammacca et al.'s analysis of studies published between 1980 and 2004. The combined corpus of 82 study-wise effect sizes was meta-analyzed to determine (a) the overall effectiveness of reading interventions studied over the past 30 years, (b) how the magnitude of the effect varies based on student, intervention, and research design characteristics, and (c) what differences in effectiveness exist between more recent interventions and older ones. The analysis yielded a mean effect of 0.49, considerably smaller than the 0.95 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effect for standardized measures was 0.21, also much smaller than the 0.42 mean effect reported in 2007. The mean effects for reading comprehension measures were similarly diminished. Results indicated that the mean effects for the 1980-2004 and 2005-2011 groups of studies were different to a statistically significant degree. The decline in effect sizes over time is attributed at least in part to increased use of standardized measures, more rigorous and complex research designs, differences in participant characteristics, and improvements in the school's "business-as-usual" instruction that often serves as the comparison condition in intervention studies.

Keywords: reading disabilities; reading intervention; struggling readers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatterplot of effect size by year of publication for all types of outcome measures. Note. Area of the circles on the graph is proportionate to the study’s weight.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplot of effect size by year of publication for standardized outcome measures. Note. Area of the circles on the graph is proportionate to the study’s weight.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Scatterplot of effect size by year of publication for all measures of reading comprehension. Note. Area of the circles on the graph is proportionate to the study’s weight.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatterplot of effect size by year of publication for standardized measures of reading comprehension. Note. Area of the circles on the graph is proportionate to the study’s weight.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abbott SP, Berninger VW. It's never too late to remediate: Teaching word recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4–7. Annals of Dyslexia. 1999;49:223–250.
    1. Alfassi M. Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal. 1998;35:309–332.
    1. Allinder RM, Dunse L, Brunken CD, Obermiller-Krolikowski HJ. Improving fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. 2001;22:48–45.
    1. Anders PL, Bos CS, Filip D. The effect of semantic feature analysis on the reading comprehension of learning-disabled students. In: Niles JS, Harris LA, editors. Changing perspectives on reading/language processing and instruction. Rochester, NY; National Reading Conference: 1984. pp. 162–166.
    1. Berkeley S, Mastropieri MA, Scruggs TE. Reading comprehension strategy instruction and attribution retraining for secondary students with learning and other mild disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2011;44:18–32. doi: 10.1177/0022219410371677. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources