Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of different types of questioning interventions on students' reading comprehension. Fourth-grade students (n = 246) were identified as struggling, average, or good readers and assigned randomly within school to one of three questioning interventions: two inferential conditions (Causal or General) or one literal condition (“Who, What, Where, When” or W-questioning). Teachers delivered the interventions for 20–30 min, 2–4 times per week, for 8–10 weeks. All readers made reliable pre- to posttest comprehension gains as measured by story recall (ps < .001 to .04). Differential effects for intervention were found between two subgroups of struggling comprehenders—elaborators and paraphrasers. Elaborators benefited more than paraphrasers from Causal questioning (d = .86) whereas paraphrasers benefited more than elaborators from General questioning (d = 1.46). These findings suggest that identifying subgroups is important in developing and evaluating the effectiveness of reading comprehension interventions.     

Correlations among the WISC-R,PIAT, and DAM

The WISC-R, PIAT, and DAM were examined to ascertain relationships among the three instruments. Moderate to high correlations were found when PIAT scores were compared to WISC-Rg iqs, while DAM standard scores correlated moderately with PIAT and WISC-R scores. Correlations indicate that information yielded by the PIAT may be obtained through WISC-R results, while the DAM may be tapping other abilities not adequately assessed by either of the other two measures.