Parent‐implemented reading interventions within a response to intervention framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study tested the effects of parent‐implemented reading interventions on four elementary students’ reading fluency. Student participants had been receiving a Tier 2 reading intervention, but they were not responding favorably to the Tier 2 intervention. A consultant conducted brief experimental analyses of reading interventions and identified a Tier 3 intervention for each student. Then, the consultant trained the students’ mothers to implement the interventions at home. The interventions were tested via a multiple baseline design across students. During the intervention phase, the consultant monitored parents’ treatment integrity and assessed students’ oral reading fluency for novel, grade‐level progress monitoring passages. Visual analysis indicates that all four students demonstrated increases in oral reading fluency for instructional passages and novel progress monitoring passages after intervention implementation. In addition, single‐case design effect sizes indicate strong effects for instructional passages for all four students, moderate effects for novel progress monitoring passages for two students, and strong effects for novel progress monitoring passages for two students. Finally, parents implemented interventions with moderate to high integrity, and parents rated the interventions as acceptable. Results are discussed in terms of implications for research and practice as they relate to parent‐implemented interventions within a response to intervention framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".