| Title |
A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reading and Writing, September 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11145-007-9085-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jade Wexler, Sharon Vaughn, Meaghan Edmonds, Colleen Klein Reutebuch |
| Abstract |
Previous research studies examining the effects of fluency interventions on the fluency and comprehension outcomes for secondary struggling readers are synthesized. An extensive search of the professional literature between 1980 and 2005 yielded a total of 19 intervention studies that provided fluency interventions to secondary struggling readers and measured comprehension and/or fluency outcomes. Findings revealed fluency outcomes were consistently improved following interventions that included listening passage previewing such as listening to an audiotape or adult model of good reading before attempting to read a passage. In addition, there is preliminary evidence that there may be no differential effects between repeated reading interventions and the same amount of non-repetitive reading with older struggling readers for increasing reading speed, word recognition, and comprehension. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 42 | 40% |
| Psychology | 21 | 20% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,218,560
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Reading and Writing
#397
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,960
of 71,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reading and Writing
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.