Using curriculum-based measurement data to monitor the effectiveness of the Wilson Reading System for students with disabilities: An exploratory study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature on the promise of the Wilson Reading System (WRS) for students with disabilities. School professionals monitored the growth of students over time using curriculum-based measurements. Participants included 51 students (53% male, 47% female) from six schools (five elementary, one middle school); the vast majority (80%) qualified for free or reduced lunches. All students were receiving special education and related services, and most had either a learning disability or a language impairment (62%). Certified teachers implemented the WRS. Results demonstrated students had significant growth in their reading over time. Directions for future research and practical implications are discussed.

Full text

Int J Disabil Hum Dev 2015; aop
*Corresponding author: Professor Melissa Stormont, PhD, College
of Education, Department of Special Education, University of
Missouri-Columbia, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65202, USA,
E-mail: StormontM@missouri.edu
David Duff: North Kansas City Public Schools, MO,USA
Molly Susanne Stebbins and David J. Wilson: Columbia Public
Schools, MO,USA
Erica Susanne Lembke: University of Missouri-Columbia, MO, USA
David Duff, Molly Susanne Stebbins, Melissa Stormont*, Erica Susanne Lembke
andDavidJ.Wilson
Using curriculum-based measurement data
tomonitor the effectiveness of the Wilson
Reading System for students with disabilities:
anexploratory study
DOI 10.1515/ijdhd-2015-0007
Received April 23, 2015; accepted June 6, 2015
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to contribute to
the literature on the promise of the Wilson Reading Sys-
tem (WRS) for students with disabilities. School profes-
sionals monitored the growth of students over time using
curriculum-based measurements. Participants included
51 students (53% male, 47% female) from six schools (five
elementary, one middle school); the vast majority (80%)
qualified for free or reduced lunches. All students were
receiving special education and related services, and most
had either a learning disability or a language impairment
(62%). Certified teachers implemented the WRS. Results
demonstrated students had significant growth in their
reading over time. Directions for future research and prac-
tical implications are discussed.
Keywords: curriculum-based measurement; disabilities;
reading interventions.
Introduction
Academic success in primary and secondary schooling is
strongly associated with reading proficiency [1]. Further-
more, the ability to read proficiently is an essential skill
needed to effectively participate and succeed in today’s
world. Unfortunately, reading difficulties are a common
challenge for many school-age children. Approximately
40% of US elementary-age students are considered non-
fluent readers [2] and according to the National Assess-
ment of Educational Progress [3], 65% of fourth graders
and 64% of eighth graders scored at or below the basic
level of reading achievement. In fact, school psycholo-
gists receive more referrals for students with reading
concerns than any other school-based concern [4], and of
those students identified with learning disabilities, 80%
have a reading deficit [5].
Despite the staggering statistics on reading profi-
ciency, extensive research clearly shows that the majority
of students, regardless of their ability level or disabil-
ity, are able to learn to read with systematic and explicit
instruction [6]. Systematic instructional programs in
reading introduce activities from the five essential com-
ponents of effective reading instruction (phonemic aware-
ness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension)
in a scaffolded manner [7]. Characteristics of explicit
instruction include frequent student responses, immedi-
ate teacher feedback and correction and careful student
monitoring [8]. One program that incorporates the five
necessary components required to become a successful
reader through systematic and explicit instruction is the
Wilson Reading System (WRS). The purpose of this study
was to contribute to the literature to date on the effective-
ness of the WRS for students with disabilities by examin-
ing effects using Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)
as an outcome measure. To provide a context for the
study, the WRS is described next followed by the current
literature to support its effectiveness and research on CBM
within the context of response to intervention.
Wilson Reading System
The WRS was first introduced in 1988 by Barbara Wilson
and is based on the Orton-Gillingham multisensory
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

2
Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
philosophy and principles [9]. WRS was originally
designed for students in the second through twelfth grades
with dyslexia, but has been expanded to encompass
below grade-level readers, English language learners and
students eligible for special education. The WRS program
provides a well-organized, incremental and cumulative
12-step system that provides extensive instruction in pho-
nemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and com-
prehension. Steps one through six focus on decoding and
encoding, and steps seven through twelve focus more on
word analysis, vocabulary development, comprehension
and metacognition. Students do not move onto the next
step until they have met the previous step’s criteria [10].
WRS utilizes a unique “sound tapping” system to
assist in teaching students to differentiate the phonemes
in a word to apply the decoding and encoding skills
learned. Phonics instruction is achieved through the pres-
entation of phonemes, short vowels and double conso-
nants. Polysyllabic words are introduced once students
are taught to segment words into syllables. Fluency is
targeted by providing students opportunities to read and
reread wordlists, sentences and stories. Additionally, a
penciling technique is used to develop reading prosody.
Vocabulary is introduced in isolation and each previous
lesson’s vocabulary is included in the subsequent lessons.
Comprehension is taught through visualization, breaking
the story down into smaller units, linking and retelling.
Additionally, all texts are controlled for the students to
master decoding and encoding [10].
There is promising research to suggest that the WRS,
when used as intended, can help struggling readers
become competent readers. One study assessed the
efficacy of the WRS delivered in a pull-out program on
students’ reading and spelling skills [11]. Participants
included 220 students with language learning disabilities
in grades three through twelve who had reading scores
on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test at least 2years
below their grade placement and had not shown pro-
gress in other reading programs. The students’ IQ scores
ranged from low to high average. Additionally, most of
the students received direct special education in daily
pull-out programs. Pretest and posttests scores on the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R) were
used to measure growth in word attack, passage compre-
hension and total reading. The results demonstrated that
significant gains were made for all the word attack and
passage comprehension scores as well as spelling scores.
The average gain was 4.6 grade levels on word attack,
1.6 grade levels on passage comprehension and 1.9 grade
levels in total reading. These improvements are prom-
ising when considering that these students had made
little or no gains in reading with previous intervention
methods.
An additional study conducted by Wood examined
the progress of 375 students in grades three through eight
using pretest and posttest results on the Wilson Reading
Mastery Test (Wood, Unpublished manuscript). Data on
student performance were collected over a 2-year period
of time. The results indicated that students of all grade
levels who received the WRS demonstrated significant
gains on word identification, word attack, passage com-
prehension, the basic skills cluster and the total reading
cluster. Furthermore, the most severe group showed the
greatest gains in the total reading cluster. In other more
recent research, Torgensen etal. [12] examined the effec-
tiveness of four different reading interventions, including
a modified WRS, for 772 third and fifth grade students.
The modification involved focusing on the word-level
skills lessons in WRS. The intervention was delivered for
60min a day, 5days a week, for approximately 100 ses-
sions. Outcome measures indicated significant impacts on
phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency
and reading comprehension; however, there were fewer
significant impacts for fifth graders. Overall, at the end of
the study, the reading gap for students in the intervention
group was generally smaller in comparison to the control
group. Finally, promise for the WRS was also documented
in an additional recent study with students with disabili-
ties. Students who received the WRS had improvements
in reading in the areas of comprehension, decoding and
fluency [13]. The majority of students in this study had
learning disabilities.
Data-based decision-making: curriculum-
based measurement
Given the need for teachers to implement evidence-based
practices with their students, but the apparent lack of pro-
grams that qualify as meeting standards, it is important
that teachers understand how to select and implement
research-based or early-evidence programs and modify as
needed based on student data. This data-based program
modification (DBPM) approach is a method that teachers
can use on an ongoing basis to assess student progress
as a particular intervention is implemented and to make
changes based on student data. DBPM is particularly
important for students in Tier 3 of a Response to Interven-
tion model, as many interventions may have been tried
and may have failed for these students in the past. In their
seminal work in the area of DBPM, Deno and Mirkin [14]
describe how even with the existence of research-based
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
3
interventions, it is impossible to predict whether these
interventions will meet the educational needs of every
student. Therefore, teachers need to test the instructional
changes that are implemented by using student progress
data combined with decision rules. This use of data-based
decision-making is an integral part of the use of curricu-
lum-based measurement (CBM).
CBM is a method of screening and progress moni-
toring that helps provide a framework for data-based
decision-making. Based on early work in precision teach-
ing [15], CBM was first utilized with special education
teachers to help to examine the effectiveness of instruc-
tion for individual students [14]. CBM is now utilized as
a tool to inform teacher’s instruction regarding whether
students are benefitting from instruction and also as a
norm-referenced measure to examine student perfor-
mance and progress compared to national averages. The
use of CBM is particularly well suited for students in Tier
3 of a Response to Intervention (RTI) system as these are
students for whom individual plans are typically created
using problem solving methods, and these are also stu-
dents for whom research-based interventions may have
failed in the past. The teachers of Tier 3 students need
ongoing progress data for their students to make sure that
they make changes in instruction frequently and that the
changes are based on data patterns for each student. Past
research has indicated that teachers who make instruc-
tional decisions based on CBM data make more frequent
changes and make higher quality changes [16].
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to provide additional infor-
mation on the effectiveness of the WRS using curricu-
lum-based measurements to extend the research base
by examining WRS with students with disabilities in an
applied setting. This study also provides schools with a
context for how to evaluate an intervention. By tracking
the achievement of students with disabilities, this applied
research examined growth in the reading skills that have
been documented to be critical for becoming a successful
reader. This study contributes to the literature on Tier 3
interventions as the WRS is an intensive intervention for
participants. The guiding research questions were the
following:
– Did students with disabilities show significant read-
ing growth on CBM after receiving the WRS for 1 year?
– How did students’ rates of improvement compare to
the average rate of improvement on a general out-
come measure?
Methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 51 students (27 males, 24 females) from six
schools including ve elementary schools and one middle school in
a Midwestern city. Of the students, 64% of the students were enrolled
in elementary school (grades 2 through 5), and 34% were enrolled
in middle school (grades 6 and 7). Of the student participants, 80%
qualied for free and reduced lunch and 52% were considered minor-
ity students (48% African American, 4% Hispanic, 2% multi-racial).
Additionally, all of the students had previously been identied with
an educational disability and had an individual education plan
(IEP), which included one or more reading goals for basic skill acqui-
sition. The majority of our sample had been identied with a specic
learning disability (46%). Other disabilities represented included
language impairment (16%), other health impairment (12%), hear-
ing impairment (10%), intellectual disability (8%), emotional distur-
bance (4%) and autism (4%). Sixteen certied teachers implemented
the WRS. Each teacher who participated in this study was a learning
specialist employed by the district’s special services department,
serving students with disabilities who require specialized instruction
in reading. This project was possible through a grant from the State
Department of Education.
Measures
Oral Reading Fluency (AIMSweb R-CBM): AIMSweb Reading Curric-
ulum-Based Measurement (R-CBM) is a nationally standardized gen-
eral outcome measure that serves as an indicator of general reading
achievement [17]. R-CBM is administered using standardized testing
procedures to ensure consistency. The reading passages are written
to represent the general curriculum. Students read aloud for 1min
from meaningful passages. The number of words read and errors are
counted to determine the overall words read correctly, which trans-
lates into an oral reading uency score. When obtaining a benchmark
score, three measures are given and the median words read correctly
are recorded. Once a score is determined, it can be compared to
national normative data using percentile ranks and interpreted as
the percentage of students in the normative group who scored at or
below the score of interest. Students were benchmarked using R-CBM
three times during the course of this study (Fall, Winter and Spring).
Reading Comprehension (AIMSweb R-MAZE): The AIMSweb read-
ing MAZE (R-MAZE) is a nationally standardized general outcome
measure that serves as an indicator of general reading achievement.
R-MAZE can be used as a supplemental or corroborative measure in
addition to R-CBM, especially when comprehension problems are
suspected, to provide a more complete picture of a student’s reading
skills [18]. Like R-CBM, R-MAZE is administered using standardized
testing procedures to ensure consistency. R-MAZE is a multiple-
choice, cloze task that students complete while reading silently for
3min. The rst sentence in the 150- to 400-word passage is le intact.
Aer this, every seventh word is replaced with three words inside
parentheses. One of the words is correct with the other two being dis-
tracters. One of the distracters is a near distracter, meaning that the
distracter is selected from content that might be found in the rest of
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

4
Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
the passage, and the other is selected randomly from the story and is
a word that clearly does not make sense. Responses correct are calcu-
lated adding all responses minus errors. Once a score is determined,
it can be compared to national normative data using percentile ranks
and interpreted as the percentage of students in the normative group
who scored at or below the score of interest. Students were bench-
marked using R-MAZE three times during the course of this study
(fall, winter and spring).
Procedure
Intervention training: The WRS was implemented as a Tier 3 inter-
vention for the entire school year. Benchmarking data from AIMSweb
was the primary tool used to determine the tiered level for students,
and this data was supported by other standardized district and class-
room measures. Lessons were taught for 45min per day, 5days per
week. The WRS was implemented for the entire school year. Les-
sons were taught for 45min per day, 5days per week. The WRS has
been used in the district since 2005. The teacher training entails 1
full day of training to use the materials and understand that proto-
col for teaching lesson components in order and with delity. The
teachers in this study were given the opportunity to practice each of
the components during training and given the materials necessary
to conduct reading intervention groups at their respective schools.
Teachers were also provided sustained professional development
throughout the year by certied Wilson trainers. An important aspect
to this study was the delity checks completed by the trainers. These
checks involved classroom observations to ensure all components of
the WRS were being addressed appropriately and systematically as
outlined during training (see Figure1 for an example of a Wilson’s
delity lesson checklist).
Data team meetings: All participants in this study received 2days of
training that provided them with an overview of responses to inter-
vention and CBM as well as the administration, scoring and use of
AIMSweb data. As part of this training, all six schools formed data
teams that consisted of learning specialists, speech-language pathol-
ogists, school psychologists and administrators. Data teams were
uniformly trained on how to make data-based decisions using CBM
data. Data teams were required to meet three times per year to review
benchmark data and every 6 weeks to review progress monitoring
data. During these collaboration times, teams discussed necessary
changes that needed to be made to WRS implementation or, in some
cases, a student’s IEP. To ensure data teams were running smoothly,
district support sta attended team meetings to provide guidance
and resources (e.g. materials).
Results
Reading growth
We were interested in knowing if our sample of students
with disabilities demonstrated significant growth in oral
reading fluency after having been exposed to the WRS for
1 year (see Figure2). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA
was conducted using the three mean R-CBM scores (i.e.Fall,
Winter and Spring) collected for the students who partici-
pated in this study. The results of the analysis revealed a
statistically significant difference among the three mean
R-CBM scores, F(2,48) = 111.85, p < 0.05, η
2
= 0.82. There was
a significant linear trend, F(1, 49) = 224.56, p < 0.05, indicat-
ing that as students progressed through the WRS, their
average oral reading fluency scores significantly increased
(see Figure 2). To examine if students with disabilities dem-
onstrated significant growth in reading comprehension
after having been exposed to the WRS for 1year, a one-way
repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using the three
mean R-MAZE scores (i.e. Fall, Winter and Spring) collected
for the students who participated in this study. The results
of the analysis revealed a statistically significant differ-
ence among the three mean R-MAZE scores, F(2,37) = 43.98,
p < 0.05, η
2
= 0.70. There was a significant linear trend,
F(1, 38) = 65.16, p < 0.05, indicating that as students pro-
gressed through the WRS, their average reading compre-
hension scores significantly increased (see Figure2).
Rate of improvement
To answer the research question regarding rate of improve-
ment, a rate of improvement was calculated using a growth
model where, collapsed by grade, Spring raw scores were
subtracted from Fall raw scores and divided by the number
of instructional weeks in an academic year. To compare this
rate of improvement to national norms, a normative rate of
improvement was calculated by averaging rates of improve-
ment at the 25th percentile for grades 2–7. The same calcu-
lations as used with the R-MAZE data were applied to the
R-CBM data. The overall weekly rate of improvement across
participations on R-MAZE was 0.17 words correct, whereas
the average national rate of improvement was 0.12 words
correct per week. Our next research question addressed
whether receiving the WRS as a tier 3 intervention for 1 year
affected the rate of improvement compared to the average
rate of improvement on a measure of oral reading fluency.
Our results showed that our sample achieved a weekly rate
of improvement of 0.68 words read correctly on R-CBM; this
was compared to the calculated national average of 0.78
words read correctly per week.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness
of the WRS with students with disabilities in an applied
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
5
Wilson Reading Lesson (Books One and Two) Checklist
I. Quick Drill (2 min)
Teacher and/or drill leader reviews letter name-keyword-sound as needed, always
including the vowels.
II. Making Words (5–7 min)
The teacher builds past and current words with sound cards.
The individual/group practices tapping independently and reading the words.
The teacher instructs on a specific concept.
The group leads the tapping, the teacher echoes.
III. Word Cards (5 min)
The teacher reviews past and current sub step words.
Students read the word cards automatically but tap when needed.
IV. Charting (10 min)
The teacher charts students individually reading selected word lists and records student
errors. (These errors are noted in Part 2 of the next lesson.)
Errors are reviewed with the student through teacher questioning.
V. Sentences (5–7 min)
The teacher reviews sight words and vocabulary words that the students might come
across in a minimum of 5 sentences.
The students read the sentences silently touching each word, tapping when needed and
working on scooping phrases.
The teacher/group practices phrasing the sentences for fluency.
The teacher may ask comprehension/vocabulary questions connected to the sentences.
IX. Controlled Passage (15 min)
The teacher reviews the sight words at the top of the page, introduces the title and gives
the gist of the passage.
The teacher models visualization of the first sentence of the passage, “I have Tom
looking like my uncle and the path is the Katy Trail…”
The students read the passage using a pencil eraser or finger to track their reading while
silently practicing visualization. The students then take turns retelling the passage.
The students take turns reading their scooped sentences in the passage, working
towards fluency, “sounding like talk.”
Comments:
The Wilson Partnership teacher will follow up through email.
The Wilson Partnership teacher will follow up through conversation.
Other:
Figure 1: Wilson Fidelity Lesson checklist.
setting using CBM. The results demonstrate that students
with disabilities significantly improved their reading abil-
ities over time as measured by AIMSweb CBM (i.e. RCBM
and RMAZE). There are implications for future research.
Implications for research
Based on an intervention report from the What Works
Clearing House [19], the WRS received a potentially
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

6
Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
positive effectiveness rating in alphabetics, which includes
the basic phonological processes of phonemic aware-
ness, phonics and the alphabetic principal. No discern-
ible effects were indicated for fluency, comprehension or
general reading ability based upon the current research.
Furthermore, a report by WWC [20] indicated that for stu-
dents with learning disabilities, no current studies met the
WWC evidence standards for the WRS. This demonstrates
a lack of studies meeting the WWC evidence standards
on the effectiveness of the WRS and a need for additional
information. Although the current study does not meet the
criteria for WWC evidence standards, it can direct future
research in this area. Future researchers could more sys-
tematically examine the difference between the WRS
through random assignment. Control groups for children
with disabilities who are receiving services are not appro-
priate; however, to have more rigor than a pretest posttest
design without a control group, groups of children with
disabilities could be randomly assigned to receive a dif-
ferent treatment (control), while others received the WRS.
Another challenge in conducting research with students
with disabilities is the heterogeneity of the population.
Depending on the number of students in a study, students
may need to be matched before random assignment based
on disability category, gender, SES, achievement and IQ.
Implications for practice
Overall, this study highlights two broad implications
for practice that educational professionals need to be
70
60
50
40
30
Words correct per minute
20
10
0
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Number correct
Fall
Winter
Mean R-MAZE Raw scores
Mean R-CBM Raw scores
Spring
Fall
4.51
9.33
10.74
34.32
45.74
59.58
Winte
rS
pring
Figure 2: Mean growth on target measures.
aware of when supporting implementation of evidence-
based reading programs like the WRS. These implica-
tions fit well into the four essential components of RTI
from the National Center for Response to Intervention
(NCRTI), which include (1) a school-wide, multi-level
instructional support system, (2) academic screening
procedures, (3) progress monitoring and (4) data-based
decision-making [21]. One implication addresses the
intervention implementation and the other addresses
the method in which the effectiveness of the interven-
tion is determined.
Regarding the intervention, several factors need to
be considered to ensure the efficacy of the intervention.
These include 1) appropriate training for teaching staff,
2) student selection and grouping, 3) frequency, duration
and intensity of the intervention and 4) assessing inter-
vention fidelity. The following are guidelines that the
WRS has recommended regarding the latter four consid-
erations. The WRS recommends that teachers complete
the WRS Level I certification course in order to be able to
effectively implement WRS [22]. The WRS program fidel-
ity checklists suggests that students should be considered
for the intervention if they score below the 30th percentile
in decoding, word identification and/or word attack skills
on standardized measures. Students should be placed
in groups of up to six with those scoring between the 1st
and 15th percentile and 16th and 30th percentile being
grouped together. The program is designed to be imple-
mented 3–5 times a week for 60–90min and can take up
to 2–3years to complete [22]. To ensure fidelity to imple-
mentation, the WRS has developed a program fidelity
checklist that identifies essential components of the inter-
vention including teacher training, student assessment
and placement, lesson scheduling, lesson set-up, student
pacing and progress and general lesson procedures (see
WRS fidelity checklist).
Progress monitoring is a vital component to provide
educators with objective data to determine if a student is
responding to intervention efforts. Commercial CBMs and
progress monitor programs are available (e.g. AIMSweb,
DIBELS, EdCheckup) that fill this need. Several practi-
cal considerations need to be considered to determine if
the intervention was effective. These include 1) selecting
a method for measuring progress 2) ensuring students
are monitored at their instructional level, 3) goal setting
and 4) knowing when to increase or decrease interven-
tion support. Since AIMSweb CBMs were used in this
study, AIMSweb guidelines will be used to address the
latter four considerations. AIMSweb provides assess-
ment recommendations by grade level that can be used
to guide educators in knowing what CBM should be used
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
7
(aimsweb.com). Some students may be performing well
below grade level expectations, and AIMSweb provides
guidelines on when and how to survey level a student
to ensure they are being monitored on their instruc-
tional level. Survey leveling involves stepping back
grade-by-grade until a student’s score is at or above the
minimal level or performance (i.e. the 10th percentile)
for that grade. Goal setting using AIMSweb provides a
measurable, meaningful, manageable and reasonable
goal. This goal-setting method involves using the stu-
dent’s baseline score+(rate of improvement * number
of weeks). Please see the user manual for complete
analysis of goal setting. Lastly, educators need data-
decision rules to determine if the intervention is effec-
tive and whether to increase or decrease intervention
support. AIMSweb provides qualitative feedback based
on the student’s rate of improvement and sets goals to
determine if the student’s progress is sufficient. These
include the following: below target, the rate of improve-
ment is 0.5 units below the goal rate of improvement;
near target, the rate of improvement is within 0.5 units
of the goal rate of improvement; above target, the rate of
improvement is more than 0.5 units above the goal rate
of improvement; goal missed, the scores obtained after
the goal date are less than the goal score; goal achieved,
the scores obtained after the goal date is at or above the
goal score.
These guidelines help professionals analyze whether
the WRS or any evidence-based intervention, is enhancing
academic achievement for a given student. These practi-
cal implications will help ensure educational systems are
using multi-tiered instructional systems of support that
are being implemented with fidelity, progress monitoring
is occurring and data-based decisions are being made to
provide struggling readers with appropriate interventions
to meet their learning needs.
Limitations
There are some limitations to this applied research. First,
as mentioned above, there was not a control group in this
study. Thus other factors could have led to student growth
in reading. However, given the severe discrepancies in
reading achievement it is likely that some of the variance
was due to an intensified approach to teaching reading
(i.e. the WRS). Second, a heterogeneous group of students
with disabilities was included; thus no conclusions can be
drawn specifically for students with one type of disabil-
ity. Third, a small group of students from one Midwestern
district was included in this study. Future research needs
to include more students from a larger pool of diverse
districts.
Conclusion
Given the need for increased accountability for all stu-
dents, including students with disabilities. It is important
for schools to establish systems for systematically moni-
toring the effectiveness of interventions for students. This
study includes the use of CBM for monitoring growth over
time. If students do not show improvement then profes-
sionals need to make adjustments to the intervention
students receive. Findings from this study highlight one
method for monitoring growth.
References
1. Snow C. Reading for understanding: toward an R & D program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Randall Corporation,
2002.
2. Daane MC, Campbell JR, Grigg WS, Goodman MJ, Oranje A.
Fourth-grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study
of oral reading. U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office, 2005.
3. National Center for Education Statistics. The nation’s report card:
reading 2013. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, Washington,
DC, 2013.
4. Bramlett RK, Murphy JJ, Johnson J, Wallingsford L, Hall JD.
Contemporary practice in school psychology: a national
survey of roles and referral problems. Psychol Schools
2002;39:327–35.
5. Lyon GR, Fletcher JM, Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Torgesen JK,
Wood RB, etal. Rethinking learning disabilities. In: Finn CE,
Rotherham AJ, Kokanson CR, editors. Rethinking special educa-
tion for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, 2001:259–88.
6. Gill D, Kozloff M. Introduction to reading first. Wilmington: Uni-
versity of North Carolina 2004. Available at: http://people.uncw.
edu/kozloffm/Introduction_to_Reading_First.htm. Accessed: 26
Sep 2011.
7. Honig B, Diamond L, Gutlohn L. Teaching reading sourcebook,
2nd ed. Novato: Arena Press, 2008.
8. Carnine DW, Silbert J, Kame’enui EJ, Tarver SG, Jungjohann K.
Teaching struggling and at-risk readings: a direct instruction
approach. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006.
9. Ritchey KD, Goeke JL. Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-
based reading instruction: a review of the literature. J Spec Educ
2006;40:171–83.
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM

8
Duff etal.: Monitoring the WRS using CBM
10. Johnson T. Florida center for reading research: Wilson read-
ing system. Available at: http://www.fcrr.org/reports.html.
Accessed: 26 Sep 2011.
11. O’Connor J, Wilson B. Effectiveness of the Wilson reading
system used in public school training. In: McIntyre C,
PickeringJ, editors. Clinical studies of multisensory structured
language education. Salem, OR: International Multisensory
Structured Language Education Council, 1995:247–54.
12. Torgensen J, Meyers D, Schirm A, Stuart E, Vartivarian S, Mans-
field W, etal. National assessment of title I interim report. Volume
II: closing the reading gap: first year findings form a randomized
trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2006.
13. Stebbins MS, Stormont M, Lembke ES, Clippard D, Wilson DJ.
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Wilson Reading System for
students with disabilities: one district’s example. Exceptionality
2012;20:58–70.
14. Deno SL. Curriculum-based measurement: the emerging
alternative. Except Child 1985;52:219–32.
15. Palincsar AS, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-
fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition
Instruct 1984;1:117–75.
16. Stecker PM, Fuchs LS, Fuchs D. Using curriculum-based
measurement to improve student achievement: review of
research. Psychol Schools 2005;42:795–819.
17. Shinn RM, Shinn MM. Administration and scoring of reading
curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) for use in general
outcome measurement. AIMSweb Training Workbook.
Bloomington, MN: NSC Pearson, Inc., 2002.
18. Shinn RM, Shinn MM. Administration and scoring of reading maze
for use in general outcome measurement. AIMSweb Training
Workbook. Bloomington, MN: NSC Pearson, Inc, 2002.
19. US Department of Education. What works clearinghouse:
WWC intervention report: beginning reading. Washington, DC:
Institute of Education Sciences, 2007.
20. US Department of Education. What works intervention report
for students with learning disabilities: Wilson Reading System.
Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, 2010.
21. National Center on Response to Intervention. Essential
Components of RTI – a closer look at response to intervention.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs, 2010.
22. Wilson B. Wilson reading system. Millbury, MA: Wilson
Language Training Center, 1988.
Brought to you by | Ebsco EJS
Authenticated
Download Date | 12/17/15 7:48 PM