The Effects of Repeated Reading on Reading Fluency for Students With Reading Disabilities

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017).

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(2), 213-224.

This meta-analysis investigate the effects of repeated reading interventions on oral reading fluency outcomes in school-age children with or at risk for reading disabilities.

Rowan University Seed Funding

1990 to 2014

Experimental research design studies

34 included in meta-analysis

Results indicated positive effects of repeated reading (RR) interventions on reading fluency gains for students with reading disabilities (g= 1.41). The following findings were noted for key variables:<br /> <ul> <li>RR interventions were associated with greater outcomes for elementary school students (g= 1.63) than secondary school students (g= 0.86).</li> <li>RR interventions were associated with greater outcomes for students with elementary reading levels (g= 1.25) than secondary reading levels (g= 0.80).&nbsp;</li> <li>Greater gains were seen following RR interventions with listening passage preview (g= 1.95) versus those without (g= 0.94).</li> <li>RR interventions with word preview were associated with improved outcomes (g= 1.52) versus those without (g= 1.12), however these differences were not statistically significant.</li> <li>Greater outcomes were noted with a maximum number of repeats of 4 or more (g= 1.72) versus 2 or 3 repeats (g= 1.45 and 0.82 respectively).&nbsp;</li> <li>Improved outcomes were noted for nontransfer practices passages (g= 1.94) versus generalized transfer passages (g= 0.97).&nbsp;</li> <li>No significant difference is outcomes was noted for RR interventions with and without systematic error correction, goal setting, extrinsic feedback, peer-mediated reading.</li> </ul> Findings suggested that RR interventions with specific components of listening passage preview appear to be the most effective methods to improve reading fluency for students with reading disability. Further reasearch is indicated due to small sample sizes within included studies and potential for publication bias.&nbsp;