Selecting At-Risk Readers in First Grade for Early Intervention: A Two-Year Longitudinal Study of Decision Rules and Procedures

By Donald L. Compton, Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Joan D. Bryant. 2006

369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/736432cba662e46ee697ed1637298fbc6bef7cf2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Improving Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers. NCSER 2014-3000. (2014, methodology): “In the initial NICHD supported study of classification models, based on an evaluation of 206 first-grade children followed through the end of second grade, Compton et al. (2006) reported that a multivariate screening battery containing measures of phonological awareness, rapid naming, oral vocabular”
Response to Intervention Screening and Progress–Monitoring Practices in 41 Local Schools (2009, background): “Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, and Bryant (2006) suggest that conducting screening for all students three times over the course of the school year, followed by 5 or 6 weeks of progress monitoring of those students scoring below a speciﬁed score to conﬁrm at-risk status, provides efﬁciency and at the same…”
Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2008, methodology): “The CART model developed in Compton et al. (2006) is presented in Fig. 1 .A s shown, CART requires an extensive set of decision rules for added diagnostic accuracy.”
Screening for At-Risk Readers in a Response to Intervention Framework (2007, methodology): “DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency shows poor sensitivity (at best 67%) when predicting the bottom quartile performance on the Stanford Achievement Test Series (10th edition; Schatschneider, 2006), whereas word identification fluency (both level and slope) significantly increased the classification accura”
Technical Adequacy of Response to Intervention Decisions (2011, background): “For example, identifying child and setting characteristics that are uniquely associated with sustained low performance will assist clinicians in identifying risk earlier and with greater accuracy (Compton et al., 2006).”
How Can We Improve the Accuracy of Screening Instruments? (2009, methodology): “For example, Compton et al. (2006), Davis et al. (2007), Jenkins et al. (2007), and Riedel (2007) recommend including a vocabulary or comprehension measure in the screening battery.”
Early Identification of Reading Difficulties Using Heterogeneous Developmental Trajectories (2008, background): “Early and accurate identification of students at risk for reading difficulties will be fundamental to successful implementation of the various RTI models proposed (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Compton et al., 2006; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).”
Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties (2008, background): “Note, however, that the preventative approach to RTI classification described in the present paper should be distinguished from more commonly advocated RTI classification approaches that have appeared in the literature (e.g., Compton et al., 2006; Haager et al., 2007; Jimerson et al., 2007).”
On the Irrelevance of Intelligence in Predicting Responsiveness to Reading Instruction (2006, background): “…to conflict with programs of research and an emergent literature on nonresponders the aim of which is to understand the cognitive-linguistic (e.g., Compton et al., 2006; Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Paulsen, Bryant, & Hamlett, 2005; Torgesen & Davis, 1996; Torgesen et al., 1999; Vellutino et al., 1996)…”
Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties : an independent report (2009, background): “It is important that those children who have responded well to interventions continue to be monitored, to ensure that progress is maintained and to notice 44 Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), Vellutino and Fletcher (2005), Compton et al (2006); see Duff (2008) for a recent review.”
What We Need to Know about Responsiveness to Intervention (and Shouldn't be Afraid to Ask) (2007, methodology): “The number of these “false positives” (i.e., children who appear at risk but are not) was reduced considerably when, as part of our research, we used data from ﬁve weeks of weekly progress monitoring following the universal screen to further specify the nonresponders (e.g., Compton et al., 2006).”