Fluency Training for Struggling Readers: Examining the Effects of a Tier-2 Intervention in Third Graders

REVIEWER SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS

REPLY

Thank you for the opportunity to review this intervention study related to reading fluency in 3rd graders in Portugal. I have provided some feedback that would strengthen the overall manuscript and would embed it more within fluency intervention research. 

We thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions that helped use to improve the article.

Line 32 – Is there only one multi-tier framework that uses this indicator? Is MTSS the same as an RTI? I think the article could benefit from clarifying these points for the reader. The article could benefit from introducing MTSS as a type of framework. For example, In a multi-tier framework, including Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS)… 

We thank you for this suggestion. We added this clarification in the introduction, line 37: MTSS and Response to Intervention (RTI) are similar approaches, although RTI is rooted in special education legislation, focuses on quality instruction and tailored interventions, and uses student response data for educational decisions, primarily targeting learning disabilities. MTSS, on the other hand, emphasizes general education, aiming to provide proactive instruction and intervention for all students. While both RTI and MTSS involve screening, tiered interventions, and progress monitoring, MTSS has a broader focus on an inclusive, proactive support for the entire student population. The shift from RTI to MTSS represents a move towards an holistic and inclusive education, aiming for the success of all students [11-13]

Lines 57 to 63 – This section seemed to lack focus on fluency interventions except for noting the effect size identified by Gersten et al. for reading fluency. Given this specific paper relates to tier 2 fluency interventions the authors should consider reviewing fluency interventions or effect sizes for fluency interventions within wider meta-analyses. 

Regarding fluency interventions, namely Tier-2 interventions we addressed several issues in the introduction: effect size, duration, frequency, group size, strategies, and type of interventionist (lines between 66 e 110). We present the results of 5 meta-analyses (Gersten et al.; Kim et al; Wanzek et al.; Suggate; Scammacca et al.).

Is there a rationale for the focus on Tier 2 in 3rd grade? Earlier arguments noted the importance of early identification for the prevention of reading difficulties and the mitigation of future difficulties. Is it that fluency difficulties are more likely to appear at this grade level? The literature review doesn’t provide any information about fluency (what it is, how it develops, or the difficulties that learners may experience – doing so would provide links to the methodology, especially as fluency is being equated to speed of reading).

We added information regarding reading fluency and Tier-2 interventions in 3^rd grade in the introduction, in lines 30-31 and lines 73-81.

Is it also the same with motivation line 94 – it is not defined, and its relationship to the development of reading fluency is not explored. Again, this is important as it contributes to framing the methodology, in terms of why reading pleasure and reading self-concept are being used as indicators of motivation (of note, there is research that treats self-concept as a source of, or different to motivation)

We agree with the reviewer and added information about reading motivation: definition and relationship to reading fluency: “As a multi-component construct, different authors consider the existence of distinct features of reading motivation. In this study we used the definition proposed by Toste et al. [23] which includes three components: goal orientation (individual approach towards reading and reading performance intentions), beliefs (about individual competence in reading and personal perception about the activity of reading), and disposition (individual’s judgments about reading a specific topic). Research has revealed a close relationship between reading fluency and reading motivation [23-24], meaning that students with better reading skills will likely be more motivated for reading”

The methodology doesn’t provide a range of scores, thus, any interpretation of the means at pre-testing is a guessing game without sourcing the measure itself. This is evident in the discussion where the author/s state/s (Line 338) that one possible reason for the lack of change in reading for pleasure is related to the high scores on pre-test. The mean score for this measure at pre-test was 3.17. The subscale included 8 times, thus, it is difficult to understand the possible ceiling effect. 

We added information about the range of scores in the methodology as following: “For reading fluency, the number of words read correctly per minute was used in the analysis. In this study, the scores ranged between 6 and 137,07 in pre-test and between 11,67 and 177,47 in post-test. For word reading, the standardized scores were used in the analysis. These scores, have a mean of 100 and an SD of 10. In this study, the scores ranged between 98 and 137 in pre-test and between 93 and 145 in post-test. For the motivation subscales, we computed the mean scores within each subscale, so that, in this study, total scores ranged between 1 and 4”.

Line 130 – it is interesting that no outcome measure of reading comprehension was used, given its association to reading fluency and the reason that one reads. 

We agree that a comprehension measure would have provided valuable information. We added the absence of this type of measure as a limitation of this study, as

following: “The absence of a measure of reading comprehension is another limitation of this

study, considering that comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading and that it depends of reading fluency mastering [38,39]. Future studies should include this measure in order to assess the effects of the intervention program not only on fluency and motivation, but also on comprehension”.

Lines 164 -166. There seems to be a double up of the mention of when the pre-tests were carried out. 

Thank you for noticing this issue. We deleted the duplicated information.

Statistical analysis – The authors could consider correlations to look at associations due to change over time. This would enable the authors to determine if change in time to fluency or word reading was associated with any of the motivational gains identified (even though they weren’t significant pre-post). There is no comparison for the intervention group and the comparison group for the motivation subscales.  No data was reported for the delayed control group. 

Thank you for this suggestion. We added the analyses of variance comparing the intervention group and the comparison group for the motivation subscales. The same data was already reported for the delayed intervention (control) group. We also calculated the

correlation between gains in reading and reading motivation for the intervention and control

groups. We restricted this last analysis to the two groups of at-risk readers, as gains in reading and motivation frequently depend on the starting point, and in this study these two groups departed from similar levels of reading and motivation.

Line 319 – what is an impact assessment?

The sentence was rewritten as following: “The results of this study suggest that the structured intervention program that we developed had a marginal influence on reading fluency and a moderate enhancement in word reading accuracy, which aligns with findings from Slavin et al. [19], Gersten et al. [12] , and Wanzek et al. [10]”.

Discussion

Line 328 – this comment is interesting. The focus of the intervention was reading fluency. The results indicated a small effect size of .010 for fluency This effect size is notably smaller than the effect sizes found in Slavin et al., Wanzel et al., and Gersten et al, which appeared to be around .3. The authors should consider why their intervention appeared to be less effective, thus, contributing to the variability around fluency interventions. Where the intervention seemed to be most effective was in reading accuracy. Whether the author/s should portray this intervention as being effective in the remediation of reading fluency difficulties is debatable and warrants further replication. 

This study builds on previous research by showing the intervention reduced the disparity between at-risk readers (intervention group) and typical readers (comparison group), both in terms of word reading accuracy and reading fluency.

We agree with the reviewer and changed this part of the discussion, as following (lines 403-415): “The observed small effect on reading fluency is consistent with previous research [32,35]. However, it is notably lower than the effect sizes reported by several Tier-2 interventions, which averaged around .3 [12,19]. One possible explanation for this modest impact on reading fluency could be the duration and frequency of our intervention (22 sessions, twice a week). It would be beneficial for future research to examine whether more prolonged or more frequent interventions might yield more substantial improvements in reading fluency. While our intervention yielded positive outcomes in reading accuracy, further studies are essential to conclusively determine its efficacy as a Tier-2 intervention for reading fluency. Nevertheless, this research shows that our intervention reduced disparities in word reading accuracy and, to some extent, the gap in fluency between at-risk readers and their typically reading peers. Future research could explore whether longer interventions or more frequent sessions might lead to greater improvements”

REVIEWER SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS

RESPONSE

Using a randomized controlled trial, the authors test a Tier-2 reading intervention with a sample of struggling 3rd grade readers in Portugal. They find that the intervention, "The Fluency Training for Struggling Readers", is effective in increasing fluency and word reading accuracy, although it does not appear to impact reading pleasure or self concept. Using a comparison group of typical readers, the authors provide evidence that struggling readers who received the intervention may have grown slightly more than their more typical peers, although they remained well behind at the end of the intervention.

This is a strong submission, at least based on the study design. The authors construct an effective case that the intervention was effective, and the inclusion of a comparison group of typical readers is a great idea. The inclusion of students from sites across Portugal is compelling since it means that the findings are not restricted to a single setting. The sample is not huge, but it's large enough that the findings are reasonably precise. I don't know enough about the reading literature to know if this is an exciting finding, but it's definitely well executed.

I do have a few suggestions for improving the article.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions and comments that were important to increase the clarity of the study, improving the article.

On line 112, the authors write "A cohort of 1458 third-grade students underwent word accuracy and reading fluency assessments." It would be useful to know a little more about these students. How was this initial group of students constructed?

We thank the reviewer for this comment and we tried to clarify how the initial group of students was constructed (lines 137-139):

“A cohort of 1458 third-grade students, from schools that had a collaboration agreement with the research team, underwent word accuracy and reading fluency assessments. All third graders from these schools were assessed at the beginning of the school year”.

On line 117, the authors write "The at-risk students were divided into two main groups". I assume this was at random, but did not see that stated explicitly. I would like a little more detail about how the treatment and control groups were created, and in particular if the randomization was done within school.

We agree with the reviewer and specifically stated:

“Those scoring below one standard deviation from the mean in reading fluency were identified as at-risk readers. After excluding students who did not meet the word accuracy standard, the study comprised 345 at-risk readers enrolled in 14 state-funded schools across northern (64.2%), central (34.4%), and southern (1.4%) Portugal. These at-risk readers were then randomly distributed into the into two main groups, regardless of the school: the intervention group (n = 162 students) and the delayed intervention or control group (n = 183 students)”

Finally, as far as I could tell, there was very little discussion of what the control group received. My assumption is that they received no additional services and were treated like other students in the school (at least before they received the intervention), but I would like a little clarity on that.

This was an important issue that we didn´t addressed. We added the following information in the procedures (line 199-201): “The delayed intervention group received the business-as-usual reading instruction and did not receive any additional services or support during the study”.