Individualizing Guided

Oral Reading Fluency

Instruction for Students
With Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders

S T E P H A N I E A L O TA I B A AND M A B E L O. R I V E R A

Guided oral reading fluency instruction is a research-

validated strategy for improving reading achievement.
This article addresses ways to individualize guided oral
reading fluency instruction for students with emotional
and behavioral disorders using behavioral principles. In
addition, the article explains how to use data to set
goals and monitor students’ responsiveness to fluency
intervention. Several resources for fluency materials are
listed, as are Web-based resources for additional reading.

F
luent reading with comprehension has become
the gateway to success as our increasingly techno-
logical society relies more than ever on a liter-
ate workforce (Adams, 1990; National Reading
Panel, 2000). Yet, very few students with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) read fluently
enough to comprehend grade-level text or perform grade-
level work (Trout, Nordness, Pierece, & Epstein, 2003).
Typically, the reading achievement of students with E/
BD is 1.5 to 2 grade levels lower than that of their peers
in elementary school and even lower when they reach high
school (Countinho, 1986; Kauffman, Cullinan, & Epstein,
1987). Once students with E/BD lag behind their class-
mates in reading, they encounter and practice fewer words
on their grade level. Meanwhile, their successful peers con-
tinue to read grade-level text and expand their sight–word
vocabulary, so it becomes even more difficult for them to
catch up. Stanovich (1986) described the phenomena of
good readers improving across time making it nearly im-
possible for poor readers to catch up as the “Matthew
Effects.” A lack of grade-level reading skills results in
dysfluency, which interferes with performance during read-
ing instruction, as well as during content area instruction.
Students with E/BD are at high risk for academic
problems due to their reading difficulties and because of
their pervasive behavioral problems and documented re-
sistance to instructional efforts (Levy & Vaughn, 2002;
Trout et al., 2003). Consequently, during their high school
careers, nearly half (44.6%) of students with E/BD fail
one or more courses (U.S. Department of Education,
1992). Further, nearly 70% of students with E/BD fail one
or more grade-level high-stakes competency exams (e.g.,

144 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 ( PP. 144–149)
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2, 2003). Thus, not
surprisingly, more than half of students with E/BD drop
out of school; subsequently, students with E/BD are less
likely to graduate than students with other types of disabil-
ities (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The magni-
tude of the problem is growing. Over the past 10 years,
the number of students with E/BD served under the In-
dividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) jumped
to more than 460,000, which represents a 20% increase
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002).
In light of the ambitious goal of the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, 2001), which aims for all children to
be reading at grade level, it is important to consider how
educators can help students with E/BD catch up in read-
ing. NCLB requires that teachers provide instruction
that is evidence-based—in other words, instruction that
is consistent with findings from two seminal national re-
views. The first was conducted by Snow, Burns, and Grif-
fin (1998) and the second by the National Reading Panel
(NRP, 2000). Findings from these two syntheses of re-
search agreed that reading instruction should be explicit
and systematic and should include phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NRP,
2000). Furthermore, both reports highlighted the impor-
tance of intensive and individualized intervention to meet
the needs of struggling readers.
Despite the knowledge base of effective instruction
for struggling readers, several recent research reviews have
expressed regret about the limited research-based guidance
for educators in improving reading achievement of stu-
dents with E/BD (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000; Mooney, Ep-
stein, Reid, & Nelson, 2003; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, &
Bos, 2002). In addition, observational studies have suggested
that the quality of reading instruction delivered to students
with E/BD is generally low; therefore, more time was de-
voted to seatwork than research-validated practices, such
as direct instruction in reading, and more time was spent
in large-group undifferentiated instruction than in one-to-
one individualized instruction (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000).
This article draws on the NRP (2000) findings,
which support the efficacy of guided oral reading fluency
instruction. This strategy was found to improve not only
the rate and accuracy of reading but also reading com-
prehension of students with reading difficulties. Because
the studies reviewed by the NRP (2000) did not include
students with E/BD, the this article suggests ways to in-
dividualize guided oral reading fluency instruction using
behavioral principles.
What Is the Theory
Behind Reading Fluency?
For the past three decades, researchers have validated
LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) theory of automatic infor-
mation processing (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns & Griffin,
1998). Their theory suggested that reading automatically
(i.e., reading accurately at an efficient rate) “frees” the
learner to focus on the meaning of the text. Rate and ac-
curacy are the two main domains of fluent reading (NRP,
2000). A third domain is prosody, or the ability to read
with expression. Although prosody is largely seen as a by-
product of processing text automatically, it will not be
the focus of this article. Rate is the time it takes a learner
to read. Accuracy relates to words recognized and pro-
nounced correctly. With the understanding that compre-
hension is the ultimate goal of reading, individuals who
read fluently are able to focus on the meaning of text,
hold larger chunks of text in working memory, and inte-
grate the meaning of text with their background knowl-
edge (Adams, 1990). On the other hand, students with
slower reading rates may process less text, recall less in-
formation, and struggle to integrate prior knowledge
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Accelerating accuracy and
speed is an indicator of positive progress when measuring
a students’ reading achievement (Espin & Tindal, 1998;
Hasbrouk & Tindal, 1992; Shinn, 1998). Furthermore,
there is a strong, clear relationship between fluency and
comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001).
Therefore, a critical goal should be to accelerate reading
fluency of students with E/BD.
Guided Oral Reading
Research-Validated Fluency Instruction
When the NRP (2000) reviewed the literature on effec-
tive methods and materials for fluency instruction, they
found widespread agreement that reading practice builds
fluency. The strongest evidence favored guided repeated
oral reading techniques. By contrast, the NRP did not
find empirical evidence for encouraging children to do
silent independent reading. That is not to say that inde-
pendent reading is not helpful, but to date, no controlled
scientific studies have demonstrated its efficacy.
Guided repeated oral reading is based on repeated
readings (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Meyer & Felton, 1999;
Mastropieri, Leinart, & Scruggs, 1999; NRP, 2000;
Samuels, 1979). Repeated readings consist of having the
student read and reread a passage aloud several times
until achieving a desired criteria (Mercer, Campbell,
Miller, Mercer, & Lane, 2000). Researchers have gener-
ally recommended that students practice three to five
times per week for about 10 min (Chard, Vaughn, &
Tyler, 2002). Students should reread passages roughly
three to five times or until they reach a pre-established
criterion (e.g., 90 words correct per minute). Guided oral
fluency differs from repeated reading by emphasizing im-
mediate teacher feedback and guidance.
VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 145
 Individualizing Instruction
for Students With E/BD
To maximize the effects of guided repeated oral reading
for students, here are some suggested steps for teachers
of students with E/BD: First, teachers should carefully
select reading passages based on assessment by consider-
ing the interest and reading level of their students with
E/BD. The best passages are not only engaging but also
tailored to the individual reading level of each student. In
other words, passages consist of words mostly familiar to
the students. A rule of thumb is that these passages
should be at the student’s independent reading level (i.e.,
students should have a 95% accuracy rate). Furthermore,
passages should have a relatively large number of com-
mon or overlapping words, rather than a large number of
unique words (Dowhower, 1987; Rashotte & Torgesen,
1985). Table 1 provides a list of commercially available ma-
terials for fluency practice.
Second, teachers should provide a model of fluent
reading using a format that captures the attention of stu-
dents with E/BD. In general, many young students ben-
efit most from having a teacher, paraprofessional, or
tutor provide a live model of fluent reading. Dowhower
(1987) suggested that students who read between 25 to 45
words per minute may be less frustrated when supported
by a live model. The live model can also help a child pre-
view a text, check for understanding, and preteach vo-
cabulary as needed. Older and more proficient students
may prefer to read along with a tape recorder (Dow-
hower, 1987) or computer-assisted programs (Carver &
Hoffman, 1981; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). To date, only
one study directly compared the effects of a teacher ver-
sus a computer versus no model on students with E/BD
(Dawson, Venn, & Gunter, 2000). The four participants
(boys ages 7 to 8) read at roughly a first-grade level. The
intervention took place in a resource room setting. Find-
ings suggested that children read statistically significantly
more words correctly when provided the teacher model
than the computer model or no model; children using the
computer model read more words correctly than children
with no model.
Table 1. Materials for Fluency Practice
Program Web site
Great Leaps http://www.greatleaps.com/
Quick Reads http://www.pearsonlearning.com/mcp/quickreads.cfm
Read Naturally http://www.readnaturally.com/
146 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC
For some students with E/BD, teachers may also in-
corporate explicit behavioral strategies in their modeling,
such as time-delay prompting, error correction (Browder
& D’Huyvetters, 1988), and tangible reinforcers (Cochran,
Feng, Cartledge, & Hamilton, 1993). Time delay prompt-
ing includes the use of a prompt, or cue, after allowing
the learner a predetermined amount of time to pronounce
a word correctly. Error correction provides immediate feed-
back after the response. Tangible reinforcers are desired
objects given to the learner following a desired response
(i.e., sounding out a word quickly, recognizing a word by
sight, improving the rate of reading).
Third, teachers need to motivate students with E/BD
to practice reading because research has suggested that
students who have reading difficulties benefit from exten-
sive practice or multiple exposures to text. As previously
mentioned, students read and reread a passage aloud, gen-
erally 3 to 5 times (Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, &
Lane, 2000). As students practice, teachers should pro-
vide immediate corrective feedback and offer praise or tan-
gible reinforcers. To motivate students to “beat their own
time,” teachers can help them graph or chart their own
performance. Students should be encouraged to assist in
setting their own goals, monitoring their own progress,
and selecting their own reinforcers. To listen to students
reading aloud, teachers may work with small groups of
students at a time. Teachers may also consider using para-
professionals or tutors.
Partner reading or peer tutoring can also be an effec-
tive way to maximize engaged practice time and to pro-
vide a live model (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989;
Mathes & Fuchs, 1994). In partner reading or peer tu-
toring, a higher-ability reader, often called a coach, is
paired with a lower-ability reader. The coach reads first to
provide a fluent model, and the lower-ability reader fol-
lows, with help from the coach when needed. One type of
classwide peer tutoring that has been widely researched as
a supplement to core reading programs is Peer-Assisted
Learning Strategies (PALS; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, &
Simmons, 1997; see also Fuchs, Fuchs, Al Otaiba, et al.,
2001; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes & Hodge, 1995).
During PALS, students help each other practice phonetic
Material provided
Provides words in lists, phrases, and
passages from kindergarten to adult
Provides passages on social studies and
science themes with reading levels from
second to fifth grades
Provides passages from kindergarten
through adult reading levels. Also a good
source of multicultural passages and
passages in Spanish
skills and engage in partner reading. In a study conducted
in a self-contained classroom for students with E/BD using
Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (K-PALS;
Fuchs, Fuchs, Al Otaiba, et al., 2001), kindergarten stu-
dents with E/BD improved their fluency in two impor-
tant prereading skills: letter–sound naming and blending
sounds (Falk & Wehby, 2001).
How can teachers carefully monitor students’ prog-
ress in oral reading fluency? How can teachers plan and
fine-tune fluency instruction for students with E/BD?
How will teachers know if their students are catching up?
Several research-validated means of collecting data exist
to help teachers plan fluency instruction and monitor in-
dividual students’ progress.
Plan Instruction and Monitor
Progress Using Data
Teachers can administer brief oral reading fluency mea-
sures to measure the number of words a student can read
aloud in 1 minute using Curriculum-Based Measurement
(CBM). Researchers have established that oral reading
fluency measures have good reliability (e.g., Marston,
1989), that performance on oral reading fluency measures
is closely related to performance on reading comprehen-
sion measures (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, et al., 2001), and that
performance on oral reading fluency is predictive of
high-stakes testing (Good, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 2001).
Furthermore, oral reading fluency is sensitive enough to
monitor students’ progress across time (Good et al., 2001).
Hasbrouk and Tindal (1992) published a list of grade-
level benchmarks for oral reading fluency.
Examples of commercially available CBM oral read-
ing fluency tools that offer multiple probes that allow
teachers to monitor progress frequently include the Dy-
namic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS;
Good & Kaminski, 2002) and the Monitoring Basic Skills
Program (MBSP; Fuchs, Hamlet, & Fuchs, 1997). The
authors of DIBELS provide benchmarks that help teach-
ers formulate goals and evaluate student progress toward
those goals. The DIBELS benchmarks correlate with stu-
dent performance on high-stakes reading tests.
The oral reading fluency measures we just described
all have standardized procedures and directions. The
teacher asks a student to read three passages, determines
the number of words read correctly in 1 minute, and re-
cords the median, or middle, score. Words are correct if
they are pronounced correctly within 3 s. Errors include
hesitations of longer than 3 s, omissions, substitutions, re-
versals, and mispronunciations. Teachers of young students
may prefer DIBELS prereading fluency measures, which
address phonological awareness and alphabetic knowl-
edge. The DIBELS measures were found to be a sensi-
tive indicator of progress following intervention in a study
including students with E/BD (Kamps et al., 2003). Pas-
sages available from DIBELS and MBSP span first through
sixth grades. In addition, Espin and Tindal (1998) provide
guidelines for developing CBM materials for secondary
students.
At least three additional assessments measure oral
reading fluency and also provide standard scores that allow
teachers to compare children’s scores against national
norms. The Grey Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4; Wieder-
holt & Bryant, 2003) is a commonly used standardized test
of oral reading fluency in passages. The Test of Oral Word
Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rash-
otte, 1999) assesses fluency of single word and non-word
reading efficiency. These two measures have only two al-
ternate forms and, therefore, are less suited to repeated
progress monitoring. In addition, a number of informal
assessments may be used, such as informal reading inven-
tories (Johnson, Kress, & Pikulski, 1987), running rec-
ords (Clay, 1972) or miscue analysis (Goodman & Burke,
1972), although these assessments provide neither bench-
marks nor national norms.
Teachers might ask themselves how much growth
they should expect students with E/BD to make in a week.
Deno, Fuchs, Marston, and Shinn (2001) found sufficient
evidence to suggest a growth rate of two words per week
is reasonable for first-grade students with learning dis-
abilities and one word a week for older students. Thus,
teachers can develop realistic fluency goals for students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and monitor
students’ progress toward achieving those goals. If stu-
dents are not making adequate progress, teachers can ad-
just instructional methods or materials, such as providing
additional small group instruction to increase the inten-
sity of fluency instruction (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001).
Teachers may also need to examine students’ patterns of
reading errors to identify phonics skills that students may
lack. For example, many older students have memorized
words by sight but may struggle to decode words pho-
netically when they have more than one syllable. Or,
from a behavioral perspective, teachers may wish to “up
VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 147
Table 2. Resources for Research-Based Reading Interventions
Web site Purpose of the site
www.fcrr.org The purpose of the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) is to disseminate
information about research-based practices related to literacy instruction and assess-
ment for children in preschool through 12th grade. The Center has conducted care-
ful reviews of reading programs, which are available under “FCRR Reports.”

http://w-w-c.org/index.html The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established by the U.S. Department of
Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. Through a set of easily accessible Web-
based databases, the WWC provides decisionmakers with the information they
need to make choices based on high-quality scientific research.

www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/news.html#guide
The purpose of this site is to assist educators in finding and using strategies that
have been validated in rigorous studies. This site allows users to order the Depart-
ment of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) user-friendly guide: Identi-
fying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence. The
19-page publication offers evaluation factors to help determine the effectiveness of
educational reading interventions and new educational technologies.

the ante” and offer additional reinforcement, such as free
time contingent upon improved and oral fluency reading
rate.
We also wish to offer several Web-based resources
for reviews of additional reading instructional intervention;
these are listed in Table 2. Additionally, teachers may con-
sult the school’s reading coach or reading specialist and
ask for assistance in learning how to deliver guided oral flu-
ency instruction.
Conclusion
Frequently, students with E/BD engage in behavioral rep-
ertoires that represent an obstacle to their learning be-
cause they do not possess the necessary skills to cope with
academic expectations in school (Kern, Delaney, Clarke,
Dunlap, & Childs, 2001). Therefore, teachers need ways to
differentiate effective reading instruction using behavioral
components and ways to track student progress. Such in-
struction is in line with the NCLB requirement that class-
room teachers use scientifically based research practices.
This article has addressed several potentially important
and relatively easy ways for teachers to individualize guided
oral reading fluency instruction for students with E/BD.
These suggestions do not imply that teachers should ne-
glect the other four components of scientifically based
reading research, namely phonemic awareness, phonics,
vocabulary, or comprehension. However, individualized
guided oral reading fluency instruction, especially when
individualized using behavioral strategies, can play an im-
portant role in helping students with E/BD catch up to
their peers in reading.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Stephanie Al Otaiba, PhD, is an assistant professor of special
education at Florida State University and is on the research fac-
ulty at the Florida Center for Reading Research. Her research
interests include early intervention to prevent reading difficul-
ties, teacher preparation and professional development, and
cultural and linguistic diversity. Mabel O. Rivera, PhD, is an
assistant professor of special education in the Department of
Childhood, Reading, and Disability Services at Florida State
University. She is a former teacher of students with emotional/
behavioral disorders. Her current professional interests include
teaching reading to students with emotional/behavioral disor-
ders and preventing reading difficulties. Address: Stephanie Al
Otaiba, City Centre, Building 227, N. Bronough St., Ste. 7250,
Tallahassee, FL 32301.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Browder, D. M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. (1988). An evaluation of trans-
fer of stimulus control in sight word reading for children with men-
tal retardation and emotional disturbance. School Psychology Review,
17(2), 331–342.
Carver, R. P., & Hoffman, J. V. (1981). The effect of practice through
repeated reading on gain in reading ability using a computer-based
instructional system. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 374–390.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research
on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elemen-
tary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disa-
bilities, 35(5), 386–406.
Clay, M. (1972). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New
Zealand: Heineman.
Cochran, L., Feng, H., Cartledge, G., & Hamilton, S. (1993). The ef-
fects of cross-age peer tutoring on the academic achievement, social
behaviors, and self-perceptions of low-achieving African-American
males with behavioral disorders. Behavior Disorders, 25, 93–104.
Coleman, M., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Reading interventions for students
with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 93–104.
Countinho, M. (1986). Reading achievement of students identified as
behaviorally disordered at the secondary level. Behavioral Disorders,
11, 200–207.
Dawson, L., Venn, M. L., & Gunter, P. L. (2000). The effects of teacher
versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 105–113.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shinn, J. (2001). Using
curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for

148 I NTERVENTION IN S CHOOL AND C LINIC

 students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4),
507–524.
Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second grade
transitional readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 22(4), 389–406.
Espin, C., & Tindal, J. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for sec-
ondary students. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curricu-
lum-based measurement (pp. 214–253). New York: Guilford.
Falk, K. B., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). The effects of peer-assisted learning
strategies on the beginning reading skills of young children with emo-
tional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 344–359.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom
and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Al Otaiba, S., Thompson, A., Yen, L.,
McMaster, K. N., et al. (2001). K-PALS: Helping kindergartners
with reading readiness: Teachers and researchers in partnerships.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 76–80.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral read-
ing fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical,
empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–
256.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-
assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to
diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
Fuchs, L. S., Hamlet, C., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Monitoring basic skill prog-
ress. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of
basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Devel-
opment of Educational Achievement.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The impor-
tance of decision-making utility of fluency-based indicators of foun-
dational reading skills for third grade high-stakes outcomes.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory: Pro-
cedure for diagnosis and correction. New York: Macmillan.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal ef-
fects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
371–383.
Hasbrouk, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading
fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Excep-
tional Children, 24(3), 41–44.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400
et seq. (26) (amended 1997, 2004)
Johnson, M. S., Kress, R. A., & Pikulski, J. J. (1987). Informal reading
inventories (2nd ed.). Newark, IL: International Reading Association.
Kamps, D. M., Wills, H. P., Greenwood, C. R., Thorne, S., Lazo, J. F.,
Crockett, J. L., et al. (2003). Curriculum influences on growth in
early reading fluency for students with academic and behavioral
risks: A descriptive study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Dis-
orders, 11(4), 211–224.
Kauffman, J. E., Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1987). Characteristics
of students placed in special programs for the seriously emotionally
disturbed. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 175–184.
Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. (2001).
Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and
behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 239–247.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmen-
tal and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
3–21.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic in-
formation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Levy, S., & Vaughn, S. (2002). An observational study of teachers’ read-
ing instruction of students with emotional or behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 27(3), 215–235.
Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: What is it and
why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement:
Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to
increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 278–
283, 292.
Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in
reading for student with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis.
School Psychology Review, 23, 59–80.
Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. C., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane,
H. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle
schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Re-
search & Practice, 15(4), 179–189.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance flu-
ency: Old approaches and new direction. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–
306.
Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., & Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status and
trends of academic research for students with emotional distur-
bance. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 273–287.
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. (2003). Youth with disabilities:
A changing population. A report of the findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longi-
tudinal Study-2 (NTLS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its im-
plications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and read-
ing fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly,
20, 180–188.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 376–381.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based mea-
surement (The Guilford school practitioner series). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P.
(1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading
achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in
the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 95, 387–408.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing read-
ing difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences
of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Re-
search Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading ef-
ficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003).
Research on the academic status of children with emotional and be-
havioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961 to 2000.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 198–210.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Ed-
ucation Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. (2002). Reading instruc-
tion for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation
studies. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–13.
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2003). Gray oral reading tests (4th
ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
VOL . 41, N O. 3, J ANUARY 2006 149