Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urpy20

Download by: [College of St Rose] Date: 24 November 2015, At: 02:23

Reading Psychology

ISSN: 0270-2711 (Print) 1521-0685 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

Effect of the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend Intervention on the ReadingAchievement of Middle and High School ReadersWho are Deaf

Barbara R. Schirmer, Laura Schaffer, William J. Therrien & Todd N. Schirmer

To cite this article: Barbara R. Schirmer, Laura Schaffer, William J. Therrien & Todd N. Schirmer(2015): Effect of the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend Intervention on the ReadingAchievement of Middle and High School Readers Who are Deaf, Reading Psychology, DOI:10.1080/02702711.2015.1105338

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1105338

Published online: 05 Nov 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Reading Psychology, 00:1–14, 2015Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702711.2015.1105338

EFFECT OF THE REREAD-ADAPT ANDANSWER-COMPREHEND INTERVENTION ON THE

READING ACHIEVEMENT OF MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLREADERS WHO ARE DEAF

BARBARA R. SCHIRMERDepartment of Education, Defiance College, Defiance, Ohio

LAURA SCHAFFERMichigan School for the Deaf, Flint, Michigan

WILLIAM J. THERRIENDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

TODD N. SCHIRMERNapa State Hospital, Napa, California

Two studies were conducted to determine if the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) repeated reading fluency intervention is effective inimproving the reading achievement of deaf middle school and high schoolstudents. Participants included six middle school students and eight highschool students. We found consistently good comprehension during the in-terventions sessions and consistent improvement in ability to read fluentlyincreasingly more difficult passages in both studies. We also found statisticaland practical significance for pre- and post-tests on the Woodcock-Johnson forreading comprehension for the high school students but not for the middle schoolstudents and no statistical significance for reading fluency in either study.

Research aimed at improving the reading achievement outcomesof students who are deaf has focused largely on theoretical stud-ies of the factors influencing reading ability and investigationsof word recognition and reading comprehension instructionalstrategies (Luckner, Sebald, Cooney, Young, & Muir, 2005/2006;Schirmer & McGough, 2005; Schirmer & Williams, 2010). Littleattention has been directed specifically at strategies designed toimprove reading fluency among this population (Easterbrooks &

Barbara R. Schirmer is now at Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Address correspondence to Barbara R. Schirmer, P.O. Box 700350, Plymouth, MI

48170. E-mail: brschirmer@aol.com

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

2 B. R. Schirmer et al.

Huston, 2008; Schirmer, Schaffer, Therrien, & Schirmer, 2012a,2012b; Schirmer, Therrien, Schaffer, & Schirmer, 2009), and onlythe series of students we have been conducting have evaluatedthe effectiveness of a fluency intervention for improving readingfluency and reading comprehension.

As a bridge between word recognition and comprehen-sion (Welsch, 2007), reading fluency appears strongly associatedwith reading comprehension (Rasinski, Rikli, & Johnston, 2009;Silverman, Speece, Harring, & Ritchey, 2013). Repeated reading,a technique in which the student rereads a short and meaning-ful passage until a criterion level of fluency is achieved (Rasinski& Padak, 2008; Samuels, 1979), is the most studied fluency in-tervention. Though repeated reading for fluency has been foundin several studies to be effective in increasing reading rate, accu-racy, and comprehension of students with and without disabili-ties (Meyer & Felton, 1999; Schwanenflugel, Meisinger, & Wisen-baker, 2006; Tam, Heward, & Heng, 2006; Therrien, 2004; Vadasy& Sanders, 2009), other researchers have found that fluency im-provement and comprehension improvement do not go hand inhand (e.g., Bryant et al., 2000; Freeland, Skinner, Jackson, Mc-Daniel, & Smith, 2000; Sindelar, Monda, & O’Shea, 1990; Vaughn,Chard, Bryant, Coleman, & Kouzekanani, 2000). When significantimprovement in comprehension has been found with a fluencyintervention, researchers have had to ensure that the material ismatched to students’ reading ability levels (Alber-Morgan, Ramp,& Anderson, 2007; Sindelar et al., 1990).

Given the research literature on fluency and the strategy ofrepeated readings specifically, we determined that it was a promis-ing intervention for improving the fluency of students who aredeaf. We have conducted five studies to date. In our first study(Schirmer et al., 2009), participants were four second-grade deafstudents who received the fluency intervention two to three timesweekly over a period of five weeks. Analysis showed statistically sig-nificant improvement on two distal measures of reading fluency,a medium effect size for one of the measures, and a strong ef-fect size for the other measure. For the proximal measures, wefound no pattern of improvement in the number of comprehen-sion questions answered correctly during the intervention sessionsand no improvement in the difficulty level of the materials. Oursecond study (Schirmer et al., 2012b) involved 13 Grade 3–6 deaf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend 3

students. In this study, we added a comprehension monitoringstrategy to the fluency intervention. Students received the inter-vention two to three times weekly over a period of eight weeks. Wefound statistically significant improvement on three distal mea-sures including reading fluency, letter-word identification, andreading vocabulary, all of which showed a medium effect size. Forthe proximal measures, the students demonstrated better com-prehension on both literal and inferential comprehension ques-tions during the intervention sessions though no improvementin reading level of the passages. We conducted our third studywith six 7- to 10-year-old elementary-level deaf students who wereidentified as making poor progress in reading compared to theirpeers at a state school for the deaf (Schirmer et al., 2012a). Wefound no significance for any of the distal measures. For the prox-imal measures, we found consistently good literal and inferentialcomprehension during each session and a continuous increasein difficulty level of the reading passages during the interventionphase.

In the present article, we report on the next two studieswe conducted. Our purpose was to investigate the effect of theReread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend intervention on the read-ing fluency and comprehension of deaf middle school studentsin the first of these studies and deaf high school students in thesecond.

Experiment 1

Method

DESIGNMethodological design of the study was switching replications

experimental design. In this design (McMillan & Schumacher,2010), participants are randomly assigned to two groups, and bothgroups are measured under pretest conditions. After one groupreceives the intervention (and the other group serves as the com-parison group), both groups receive a first post-intervention mea-sure. Then the second group receives the intervention (and thefirst group serves as the comparison group), after which a secondpost-intervention measure is administered to both groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

4 B. R. Schirmer et al.

TABLE 1 Characteristics of Participants in Experiment 1

Age at Parent Home Concomitantoutset yrs/ Race/ Level of hearing sign skill

Student Grade of study mos Gender Ethnicity loss status disability

JC 6 11.2 M Hispanic Profound Hearing Limited NoneKM 6 12.0 F White Moderate-

SevereHearing Limited None

CW 8 14.8 F NativeAmerican

Severe Hearing Limited None

RD 6 10.10 F White Severe-Profound

Hearing Limited None

ZG 7 13.4 M White Profound Hearing Limited NoneKO 7 12.10 F White Profound Hearing Limited None

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGParticipants were randomly selected from a convenience sam-

ple among middle school students at a state school for the deaf.The six participants were randomly assigned to the first group (to-tal three; Ages 11-2, 12-0, and 14-8 at pretest) and second group(total three; 10-10, 13-4, and 12-10 at pretest). Characteristics ofthe participants are provided in Table 1.

The literacy specialist who carried out the interventions is acertified teacher of students who are deaf and hard of hearingand has been rated as a proficient signer on communication eval-uations used at the school. American Sign Language (ASL) is usedfor verbal classroom instruction. Speech and language services areconducted in pull-out sessions with the speech-language clinician.All written language is in English.

MATERIALSA set of reading passages (Therrien, Wickstrom, & Jones,

2006) formed the corpus of materials available for the literacyspecialist to use in the intervention. The readability level of eachpassage had been determined by applying the Flesch-Kincaid for-mula. Passage length was set so that each could be read in 1 to 1.25minutes by hearing students with oral reading speeds at the 50thpercentile for their respective instructional reading level. Eachpassage contained a complete narrative, topics involved themescommonly found in children’s literature, and each was accompa-nied by four factual and four inferential questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend 5

PROCEDUREThe Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) inter-

vention is a supplemental, stand-alone program designed to in-clude essential instructional components from both the repeatedreading and question generation literature bases. Research onRAAC has been promising in demonstrating significant improve-ment in reading speed on passages that are reread, positive impacton inferential comprehension of intervention passages, signifi-cant gains in oral reading fluency of independent passages, andthe potential to improve the overall reading achievement of stu-dents with learning disabilities (Therrien & Gormley-Budin, 2008;Therrien & Hughes, 2008; Therrien, Wickstrom et al., 2006).

The RAAC intervention (Therrien, Gormley, & Kubina,2006) was used with the students individually two to three timesweekly over a period of two months. Because of absences andscheduling conflicts, the students received an uneven number ofintervention sessions, which ranged from 14 to 16. The interven-tion was supplemental to the students’ regular reading instruc-tion program, which did not include reading fluency as a com-ponent. The initial passages were selected to match the instruc-tional reading level of each student as determined by their scoreson the Woodcock-Johnson III Achievement Tests reading subteststhat were administered prior to the outset of the study.

The literacy specialist followed a lesson plan format to en-sure fidelity to the steps of the intervention. As introduction, theteacher explained that the student would read the story aloudand/or in sign (depending on the child’s preference) as quicklyas she or he could and if the student encountered an unknownword and could not figure it out, the teacher would assist by pro-viding the word. A cue card containing generic story structurequestions (i.e. who, what, where, when, what, and how) was pre-sented and the teacher prompted the students to read the ques-tions. For the first reading, the student read the passage from hisor her own copy, the teacher timed the reading and notated er-rors on her copy of the story during reading, and the teacherrecorded the time and numbers of errors when the student fin-ished reading. The student was asked to reread the story untilreaching the criterion level of no more than two errors or un-til reading the passage four times. (We did not apply the secondRAAC criterion of correct words per minute as we expected signed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

6 B. R. Schirmer et al.

reading to be slower than oral reading and no norms for signedreading have yet been established.) At that point, the literacy spe-cialist prompted the student to answer the cue card questions andprovided assistance as needed. The student was then asked thecomprehension questions. The literacy specialist adjusted the dif-ficulty of the reading material in subsequent sessions, selecting alower level if the student consistently could not reach criterion infour readings and selecting a higher level if the student consis-tently reached criterion within one or two readings and answeredthe comprehension questions correctly.

MEASURESPre- and post-test measures included four reading subtests

of the Woodcock-Johnson III Achievement Tests—Letter-WordIdentification, Reading Fluency, Passage Comprehension, andReading Vocabulary (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). Twocategories of session intervention measures were used. The firstcategory was used to make decisions about the reading level ofmaterials used in the next session; these include the number ofreadings to reach criteria, word reading errors per session, andreading time of each passage per session. The second categoryfunctioned as outcomes measures. These include number of com-prehension questions answered correctly and the reading level ofmaterials.

Analysis and Results

Using a dependent t-test, we found no significance for any ofthe distal measures (i.e. Woodcock-Johnson III reading subtests)when we compared the fall intervention group to the fall compar-ison group and spring intervention group to the spring compari-son group. For the proximal measures (i.e. comprehension ques-tions and level of materials), we found consistently good literaland inferential comprehension except for one participant duringeach session and a continuous increase in difficulty level of thematerials except for the same participant. Table 2 displays the sta-tistical analysis for the outcomes of the distal measures and Table 3displays a summary of findings for the outcomes of the proximalmeasures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend 7

TABLE 2 Analysis of Outcomes on Distal Measures in Experiment 1

Measure t(2) MDiff SEDiff p Cohen’s d

Fall InterventionWJIII Reading Comprehension cluster 0.213 0.033 0.156 0.842 0.183WJIII Reading Fluency 2.000 0.733 0.367 0.116 2.036Winter-Spring InterventionWJIII Reading Comprehension cluster 1.387 0.333 0.240 0.238 1.148WJIII Reading Fluency 2.274 1.000 0.440 0.850 2.222

Experiment 2

Method

DESIGNMethodological design of the study was a single-group exper-

imental design (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). In this design,the effect of an intervention is determined by comparing pre- andpost-outcomes for one group only. We used this design, as is com-mon in studies with deaf participants, because the characteristicsof the participants are so unique that it was not feasible to locatean equivalent group. In two of our prior studies, we employed aswitching replications design to enable a comparison group butthe brief intervention nature of the present study precluded us-ing switching replications.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTINGParticipants were randomly selected from a convenience sam-

ple among high school students at a state school for the deaf. Of

TABLE 3 Summary of Findings on Proximal Measures in Experiment 1

Readability grade level Average number of correctMeasure span during intervention comprehension questions

JC 1–4.5 7KM 1–1.7 6CW 1–1 4RD 1–2.9 6ZG 1–2.9 6KO 1–1.7 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

8 B. R. Schirmer et al.

the eight participants, five received the intervention from one lit-eracy specialist and three received the intervention from the otherliteracy specialist due to class scheduling. Ages ranged from 13-9to 18-7, and all of the students were in Grades 9 or 10. Character-istics of the participants are provided in Table 4.

The literacy specialists who carried out the interventions arecertified teachers of students who are deaf and hard of hearingand have been rated as proficient signers on communication eval-uations used at the school. As this study took place at the sameschool for the deaf as the study with middle school students, ASLis also the language used for verbal classroom instruction at thehigh school level. All written language is in English.

PROCEDUREThe RAAC intervention (Therrien, Gormley et al., 2006) was

used with the students individually for five–seven sessions, whichvaried based on scheduling issues. The intervention was supple-mental to the students’ regular reading and language arts instruc-tion program, which did not include reading fluency as a compo-nent. The passages were selected to match the instructional read-ing level of each student as determined by their scores on theWoodcock-Johnson III Achievement Tests reading subtests thatwere administered prior to the outset of the study. The literacyspecialists followed the same lesson plan format as was used in themiddle school study to ensure fidelity to the steps of the interven-tion.

MEASURESThe distal and proximal measures were the same as those

used in the middle school study. Pre- and post-test measuresincluded four reading subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson IIIAchievement Tests—Letter-Word Identification, Reading Fluency,Passage Comprehension, and Reading Vocabulary (Woodcocket al., 2001). Two categories of session intervention measures wereused. The first category was used to make decisions about thereading level of materials used in the next session; these includethe number of readings to reach criteria, word reading errors persession, and reading time of each passage per session. The secondcategory functioned as outcomes measures; these include number

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

TA

BL

E4

Ch

arac

teri

stic

sof

Part

icip

ants

inE

xper

imen

t2

Age

atPa

ren

tH

ome

Con

com

itan

tou

tset

yrs/

Rac

e/L

evel

ofh

eari

ng

sign

skill

Stud

ent

Gra

deof

stud

ym

osG

ende

rE

thn

icit

ylo

ssst

atus

disa

bilit

y

VB

914

.4M

Wh

ite

Prof

oun

dD

eaf

Profi

cien

tN

one

CC

1015

.7M

Ch

ines

ePr

ofou

nd

Hea

rin

gPr

ofici

ent

Non

eB

G10

18.7

MA

fric

anA

mer

ican

Prof

oun

dH

eari

ng

Lim

ited

Non

eA

M10

16.0

MA

fric

anA

mer

ican

Prof

oun

dH

eari

ng

Lim

ited

Non

eJM

1016

.9M

Afr

ican

Am

eric

anPr

ofou

nd

Hea

rin

gL

imit

edN

one

JP9

15.5

FW

hit

ePr

ofou

nd

Dea

fPr

ofici

ent

Non

eQ

T10

16.6

MW

hit

ePr

ofou

nd

Hea

rin

gPr

ofici

ent

Non

eK

V9

13.9

FW

hit

ePr

ofou

nd

Hea

rin

gG

ood

Non

e

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

10 B. R. Schirmer et al.

TABLE 5 Analysis of Outcomes on Distal Measures in Experiment 2

Measure t(7) SEDiff p Cohen’s d

WJIII Reading Comprehension cluster 0.865 0.390 0.416 0.155WJIII Reading Fluency 3.000 0.150 0.019 0.707

of comprehension questions answered correctly and the readinglevel of materials.

Analysis and Results

For the distal measures, we analyzed the data using paired t-testsand Cohen’s d. As shown in Table 5, we found no significancefor the WJIII Reading Fluency subtest (p = 0.416) and a small ef-fect size (d = 0.155). We found significance for the Reading Com-prehension cluster score (which clusters Passage Comprehensionand Word Vocabulary (p = 0.0199) and a medium-to-strong ef-fect size (d = 0.707). For the proximal measures (i.e. comprehen-sion questions and level of materials), we found consistently goodliteral and inferential comprehension during each session and acontinuous increase in difficulty level of the materials. As shownin Table 6, the participants showed consistently good comprehen-sion on passages that increased in reading difficulty.

TABLE 6 Summary of Findings on Proximal Measures in Experiment 2

Readability grade level Average number of correctMeasure span during intervention comprehension questions

VB 1–6.1 7CC 3.3–7.1 8BG 2.3–6.1 7AM 1.9–6.2 6JM 2.1–5.2 6JP 2.2–3.2 5QT 1.9–6.2 6KV 2.2–5.11 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend 11

Discussion and Conclusions

We embarked on these two experiments to determine if the RAACintervention would be effective in improving the reading achieve-ment of deaf middle school and high school students. Our priorstudies with deaf elementary students had shown consistentlygood comprehension during the RAAC intervention sessions inall but the first study and consistent improvement in ability toread fluently increasingly more difficult passages in all but thefirst and second studies. In the present two experiments, we alsofound consistently good comprehension during the interventionsessions and consistent improvement in ability to read fluently in-creasingly more difficult passages. The change we made to theintervention after the first study was to add a comprehensionmonitoring strategy, and after the second study, we had liter-acy specialists deliver the intervention rather than the classroomteachers. Findings for the distal measures have been inconsistentwith statistical and practical significance found for fluency in thefirst two studies, letter-word identification in the second study, andreading comprehension in the fifth study.

In focusing narrowly on a fluency intervention in a seriesof studies with deaf elementary, middle school, and high schoolstudents, we have attempted to determine if the intervention is ef-fective in improving the reading achievement of students whosechallenges in developing English proficiency create associatedchallenges for literacy development. Results have been promising,particularly in terms of adding a comprehension monitoring strat-egy and ensuring consistency of intervention delivery by havingliteracy specialists deliver instruction, but we have not yet iden-tified a profile of the deaf student who is most likely to benefitfrom the intervention or the number of sessions or time periodfor sessions needed to obtain improvement.

Several limitations of the studies are important to note. Oneis the small number of students in each study and that the stu-dents were not homogeneous in terms of reading level and age atthe outset. Thus, aggregating their pre- and post-test scores canobscure what may be real differences in the impact of the inter-vention or, alternatively, obscure what may be nonsignificance atthe individual level. Another limitation with a small sample size

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

12 B. R. Schirmer et al.

is the multiple comparisons we made statistically, which raise thelikelihood of a type one error. An additional limitation is whatwe call the messiness of research in schools. In the two studiesreported here and the three prior studies, the numbers of ses-sions per study varied per student in sometimes dramatic waysbecause of absences and interruptions in the school day due tospecial assemblies, field trips, and the like. Finally, interveningvariables may have affected the students’ gains in reading achieve-ment both in a positive and negative direction. That is, we cannotbe assured that the RAAC intervention was the only exposure tofluency instruction for every student and so gains in fluency and,concomitantly, reading achievement may have been as much dueto other fluency instruction as they were to RAAC. We also can-not discount the influence of classroom reading instruction onoverall reading achievement in both a positive and negative direc-tion, thus possibly inflating what appears to be the positive effectof RAAC because reading instruction is of high quality or reduc-ing the effect because reading instruction is of poor quality. Theimpacts of intervening variables and classroom instruction maybe particularly problematic in Experiment 2 because there wasno control group. Given this lack of a control group, we cannotdefinitively conclude that the gains the students made in Experi-ment 2 were due to the RAAC intervention.

The two studies which we report here and the prior threestudies represent constructive replications of the RAAC interven-tion. Given the risks of relying on results that have not been repli-cated, we have systematically varied aspects of the sample and pro-cedure in line with constructive replications that are intended totest the targeted construct (Makel & Plucker, 2014). Given thechallenges of implementing a labor-intensive instructional inter-vention among students with a low-incidence disability, carryingout a series of studies offers a reasonable empirical approachto determining whether the intervention can be identified as anevidence-based practice. Our results to date provide support forthe effectiveness of RAAC in increasing the ability of studentswho are deaf to read with good comprehension increasingly moredifficult material. However, the studies have not shown with con-sistency improvement in reading fluency and comprehension onstandardized tests of reading ability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend 13

References

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Ramp, E. M., & Anderson, L. L. (2007). Effects of repeatedreadings, error correction, and performance feedback on the fluency andcomprehension of middle school students with behavior problems. The Jour-nal of Special Education, 41, 17–30. doi:10.1177/00224669070410010201

Bryant, D. P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen,M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabili-ties in general education middle-school content area classes. Learning Disabil-ity Quarterly, 23, 238–252. doi:10.2307/1511114

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Huston, S. G. (2008). The signed reading fluency of stu-dents who are deaf/hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,13, 37–54. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm030

Freeland, J. T., Skinner, C. H., Jackson, B., McDaniel, C. E., & Smith, S.(2000). Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates: Em-pirically validating a repeated reading intervention. Psychology in the Schools,37, 415–429. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(200009)37:5<415::aid-pits2>3.3.co;2-c

Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young, J., & Muir, S. G. (2005/2006). Anexamination of the evidence-base literacy research in deaf education. Ameri-can Annals of the Deaf, 150, 443–456. doi:10.1353/aad.2006.0008

Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty:Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.doi:10.3102/0013189x14545513

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-basedinquiry (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance flu-ency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306.doi:10.1007/s11881-999-0027-8

Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N.D. (2008). From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching ofdecoding and reading fluency in the elementary school (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than auto-maticity? More than a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research andInstruction, 48, 350–361. doi:10.1080/19388070802468715

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32,403–408.

Schirmer, B. R., & McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children whoare deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review ofEducational Research, 75, 83–117. doi:10.3102/00346543075001083

Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Schirmer, T. N. (2012a, July).Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend intervention: Investigation of the effect on flu-ency and comprehension of struggling readers. Paper presented at the annual con-ference of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Montreal.

Schirmer, B. R., Schaffer, L., Therrien, W. J., & Schirmer, T. N. (2012b). Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend intervention with deaf and hard of hearing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15

14 B. R. Schirmer et al.

readers: Effect on fluency and reading achievement. American Annals of theDeaf, 156, 469–475. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1602

Schirmer, B. R., Therrien, W. J., Schaffer, L., & Schirmer, T. N. (2009). Repeatedreading as an instructional intervention with deaf readers: Effect on fluencyand reading achievement. Reading Improvement, 46, 168–177.

Schirmer, B. R., & Williams, C. (2010). Approaches to reading instruction. In M.Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, andeducation (2nd ed, pp. 115–129). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2006). Becominga fluent and automatic reader in the early elementary school years. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 41, 496–522. doi:10.1598/rrq.41.4.4

Silverman, R. D., Speece, D. L., Harring, J. R., & Ritchey, K. D. (2013). Flu-ency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17,108–133. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.618153

Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O’Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeated readingson instructional- and master-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83,220–226. doi:10.1080/00220671.1990.10885959

Tam, K. Y., Heward, W. L., & Heng, M. A. (2006). A reading instruction interven-tion program for English-Language Learners who are struggling readers. TheJournal of Special Education, 40, 79–93. doi:10.1177/00224669060400020401

Therrien, W., & Hughes, C. (2008). Comparison of repeated reading and ques-tion generation on students’ reading fluency and comprehension. LearningDisabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6(1), 1–16.

Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeatedreading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.

Therrien, W. J., & Gormley-Budin, S. (2008). Effects of the Reread-Adapt andAnswer-Comprehend (RAAC) intervention on the reading achievement ofstudents with reading and behavioral difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Mul-tidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 33–38.

Therrien, W. J., Gormley, S., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Boosting fluency and com-prehension to improve reading achievement. Teaching Exceptional Children,38(3), 22–26. doi:10.1177/07419325040250040801

Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined re-peated reading and question generation intervention on reading achieve-ment. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 89–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Supplemental fluency intervention anddeterminants of reading outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 383–425.doi:10.1080/10888430903162894

Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., & Kouzekanani, K. (2000).Fluency and comprehension interventions for third-grade students. Remedialand Special Education, 21, 325–335. doi:10.1177/074193250002100602

Welsch, R. G. (2007). Using experimental analysis to determine interventionsfor reading fluency and recalls of students with learning disabilities. LearningDisability Quarterly, 20, 115–129. doi:10.2307/30035546

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Testsof Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

lege

of

St R

ose]

at 0

2:23

24

Nov

embe

r 20

15