This document summarizes a study that tested a small-group reading comprehension intervention for 4th and 5th grade students. The intervention taught students strategies like prediction, summarization, activating prior knowledge, question generation, and clarification. It also taught students how to understand inferential comprehension questions. 3 students participated in the 20-minute intervention sessions 3 times per week. The intervention began with basic comprehension strategies and moved to teaching main idea identification and inferences. Evaluation data suggested the intervention was successful in improving the students' reading comprehension.

1. School Psychology Forum:
R E S E A R C H I N P R A C T I C E
VOLUME 7 ? ISSUE 2 ? PAGES 40–49 ? Summer 2013
A Small-Group Reading Comprehension Intervention
for Fourth- and Fifth-Grade Students
Sarah E. Scholin
Katherine M. Haegele
Matthew K. Burns
University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT: Most reading interventions within a response-to-intervention model focus on
remediating code-based deficits. This article describes a small-group comprehension
intervention that was implemented with three fourth- and fifth-grade students who
demonstrated difficulties with reading comprehension but acceptable reading
fluency. The intervention involved teaching the students specific strategies
including prediction, summarization, activation of prior knowledge, question
generation, and clarification. Students were also taught strategies to understand
inferential comprehension questions. The format, procedures, and evaluation of the
intervention are described in detail. Evaluation data suggested that the intervention
was successful.
Teachers are keenly aware of the fourth-grade switch in which students no longer learn to read,
but read to learn. As a result of this switch, reading instruction in early elementary grades
focuses on code-based aspects of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency), and
instruction in fourth and fifth grade focuses on reading comprehension (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998). That is not to say that comprehension instruction does not occur in younger grades,
because of course effective teachers are always emphasizing meaning as children read (Taylor,
Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2002), and certainly phonics and fluency-building activities are parts
of reading instruction for students in upper elementary grades (Hayes & Robnolt, 2007). However,
phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency interventions are often the most appropriate
remediation for students with reading difficulties in grades K–3 (Simmons et al., 2008).
Response to intervention (RTI) is a systematic and data-based approach to deliver academic or
behavioral interventions for struggling learners (Batsche et al., 2005). Interventions are provided
in an RTI model through a tiered system of support that relies heavily on data-based decisions.
Most RTI models adhere to a three-tiered system (Marston, 2003) in which Tier 1 includes quality
core instruction and universal screening of academic skills, Tier 2 uses small-group interventions
provided to approximately 20% of the student populations, and Tier 3 relies on individualized
interventions for approximately 5–10% of the student population (Burns, Deno, & Jimerson,
2007).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew Burns, University of Minnesota,
341 Education Science Building, 56 E. River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455; burns258@umn.edu.
Copyright 2013 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 1938-2243

2. Although research has supported the effectiveness of RTI approaches in improving reading skills (Burns,
Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005), the focus of most RTI models is on phonics and reading fluency (Allington,
2008). A focus on code-based interventions may be appropriate for struggling readers in grades K–3, but
fluency interventions for struggling readers in upper elementary years (fourth and fifth grades) may not
be the most appropriate method to remediate reading difficulties. However, there is little research
regarding small-group reading comprehension interventions, the likes of which could be used within an
RTI model.
Reading comprehension occurs when the reader develops mental representations of the text and uses
them to interpret the text (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Thus, instruction in
reading comprehension is most effective if it develops readers’ understanding of their own cognitive
processes involved in reading, models effective comprehension processes, and allows the reader to
practice the skills necessary to obtain mastery (National Reading Panel [NRP], 2000). Some specific
techniques for comprehension instruction that consistently lead to strong effects and generalization
include the use of graphic organizers, cooperative learning, generating questions after reading,
summarizing, and answering questions as part of a multiple-strategy intervention package (NRP, 2000).
Teaching explicit comprehensions strategies to students has consistently been shown to be effective
(Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002; Pressley, El-Dinary, Wharton-McDonald, & Brown, 1989; Rosenshine &
Meister, 1994; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996), even among children with learning disabilities
(Kavale & Forness, 2000). However, recent research found that comprehension is most affected by
background knowledge and vocabulary, followed in order by correct inferences about reading, word
reading skill, and strategy use (Cromley & Azevedo, 2007). Reciprocal teaching is a comprehension
intervention that teaches strategies such as prediction, summarizing, question generation, and clarifying
(Palinscar & Brown, 1984), but the importance of background knowledge suggests the need to activate
prior knowledge as well (Kintsch, 1994), usually by having the student recall what he or she already
knows about the topic before reading the text (De Corte, Vershaffel, & Van de Ven, 2001). Inferences are
usually accomplished by first identifying the main idea to assure an accurate mental representation of
the text (van den Broek, Lynch, Naslund, Ievers-Landis, & Verduin, 2003), and then teaching relationships
between ideas within the text (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, & Tarver, 2004).
Tier 2 interventions within RTI are generally delivered in a small group, require approximately 30 minutes
each day, and are focused on a specific skill (Burns, Hall-Lande, Lyman, Rogers, & Tan, 2006). The small-
group aspect of a Tier 2 intervention is a potential recipe for success with reading comprehension
because cooperative learning with students in grades 3–6 leads to increases in process and skill while
saving teacher time (NRP, 2000). An effective RTI model depends on a strong Tier 2 intervention system
(Burns & Gibbons, 2008), but the research literature is generally missing small-group interventions for
reading comprehension. Therefore, the current project focused on small-group interventions for students
in fourth and fifth grade that were based on previous reading comprehension research and addressed
reading comprehension strategies, identifying main ideas, and making inferences about the text. The goal
was to implement the interventions and examine their effectiveness as a first step in developing reading
comprehension interventions that could be used within the second tier of an RTI model.
METHODS
The students for the comprehension intervention group were selected because they scored below the
25th percentile on the Measures of Academic Progress (Northwest Evaluation Association, 2003), a group-
administered reading measure, but demonstrated reading fluency scores that were above the 25th
percentile for their grade and time of year on national norms (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). Reading fluency
was used to identify students because word reading skills are related to comprehension (Cromley &
Azevedo, 2007), and selecting students with sufficient word reading skills allowed the interventionists to
focus on background knowledge, inferences, and strategy use rather than word reading. Three students
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 41

3. were identified with these criteria. Amir (pseudonym) was a fourth-grade male of Middle Eastern descent,
Jessica (pseudonym) was a fourth-grade female Caucasian student, and Noa (pseudonym) was a fifth-
grade male Hmong student who also received English language learning services from the school.
The school the students attended served 306 students in grades K–6, and was located in a suburb of a
major metropolitan region in the Midwest. A total of 37.9% of the students qualified for free or reduced
price lunches, and 61% of the student population scored in the proficient range on the school-wide
reading tests. The reading curriculum at the school involves 120 minutes each day of reading instruction
based on a balanced literacy approach. Thus, during the 120 minutes students engage in large-group
explicit instruction, small-group guided reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996), and independent reading.
Interventions
Interventionists met with the students three times each week to deliver the interventions. The
intervention occurred in a quiet area in the school that was separate from the classroom (e.g., reading
specialist’s office, library, or hallway), and each session lasted approximately 20 minutes. The
interventionists were three female school psychology graduate students with advanced training in
reading interventions and assessment. All interventionists were trained in implementing the interven-
tions during a 1-hour session. Moreover, an implementation checklist was created for each individual
intervention in which the individual steps were outlined. The checklist was examined before each session
and completed by the interventionist at the end of each session to assure treatment fidelity and
consistency across the interventionists.
An overview of the small-group interventions is presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The interventions began
with basic reading comprehension strategies, then moved to teaching how to identify main ideas, and
finally instructed how to make inferences about the text. All strategies were taught with fourth-grade
Read Naturally (2003) passages because the passages included exposition, were written for a specific
grade level, and included reading comprehension questions based on the passage. Each Read Naturally
passage included five comprehension questions: four multiple choice and one short answer. One of the
comprehension questions for each passage asked about the main idea of the story.
The first group of interventions was based on reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984), which was
used to teach prerequisite comprehension skills. Reciprocal teaching involves direct instruction of the
following comprehension strategies: prediction, summarization, question generation, and clarifying,
along with activating prior knowledge.
Table 1. Reading Comprehension Strategies Taught
What Was Taught Materials Used How It Was Taught Evaluation
. Activate prior knowledge
. Predict
. Summarize
. Generate questions
. Clarify
Fourth grade Read
Naturally passages and
comprehension
questions
. Model the strategy
. Work with the student
to use the strategy
while reading
. Have the student
independently
implement the strategy
Maze scores as a
measure of
comprehension,
answers to
comprehension
questions, and
observations of using
the strategies
Note. Strategies are from Palinscar and Brown (1984).
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 42

4. The explicit instruction of each strategy followed the model, lead, and test format. That is, the
interventionist would first model the strategy using a think aloud method and then work with the
students to perform the strategy together. Once all members of the group correctly demonstrated the
strategy working as a group with support from the interventionist, each member was asked to perform
the strategy independently on a new passage. The students learned one strategy per session (for five
Table 2. Teaching Students to Find the Main Idea
What Was Taught Materials Used How It Was Taught Evaluation
How to find the main
idea and answer
comprehension questions
Fourth grade Read
Naturally passages
and comprehension
questions
. Students independently
previewed passage,
wrote a prediction, and
read the passage
. Model main idea
extraction
. Students completed
comprehension
questions and were
prompted to use the text
to find the answers.
Maze scores as a
measure of
comprehension and
correctly stating the
main idea
Note. Strategy from van den Broek, Lynch, Naslund, Ievers-Landis, and Verduin (2003).
Table 3. Teaching Students How to Draw Inferences From Reading
What Was Taught Materials Used How It Was Taught Evaluation
. Determining relationships
. Relationship stated
. Relationship not stated
. Generalize inference rules
into reading passages
Fourth grade
passages from the
Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and
Skills
. Students independently
read passages
. Model how to identify
relationships related to
the comprehension
questions
. Students stated the
relationship
. Students answered
comprehension questions
based on the
relationships with
support
. Students independently
practiced
Maze scores as a
measure of
comprehension and
correctly stating the
main idea
Note. Strategy from Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, and Tarver (2004).
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 43

5. consecutive sessions). After teaching all five strategies, the group practiced together for 2 weeks with the
interventionist providing help as needed.
Predict
The first strategy that was taught was prediction. Students were taught to look at the main title, scan the
page to look at major headings, and look at any illustrations to use as clues to predict what the story is
about before reading. Students were then instructed to write their predictions down and then read the
story to see if their predictions were accurate. Predictions made by the students that were logical but not
correct or not addressed in the passage were verbally reinforced by the interventionist, and a correct
prediction was modeled.
Activate Prior Knowledge
We expanded on the prediction strategy by using the strategy known as activating prior knowledge. After
students correctly predicted about what the story would be, they were prompted to think about their
own life experiences related to that topic to further predict how the story may cover that topic. For
example, the students may be asked to think about or verbally share a time that they watched or played a
baseball game before reading about a famous baseball player.
Summarize
Students were then taught how to summarize the text or list main ideas. Thus, the students were asked to
read the passage and write one or two sentences that summed up the most important ideas in the
passage. The two most common errors made by the students when summarizing were providing too
much detail and only referencing a selection of the passage. Feedback was given though prompting
questions (e.g., ‘‘Look back at the story, does your summary cover the whole story, or just a part of it?’’
‘‘If I asked you to tell me what the story was about using only two sentences, what would you say?’’). If
students did not correctly respond to prompts, the interventionist would model summarizing again.
Generate Questions
Next, students were taught how to generate questions. After creating a list of main ideas, they were asked
to write down a question that the main idea will answer and that begin with who, what, where, when, why,
and how. If a student wrote a question that was unrelated to the main idea, then the interventionist would
prompt the student by asking questions such as, ‘‘Look at the summary you just wrote. Does that answer
your questions?’’ If necessary, the interventionist would remodel generating questions.
Clarify
Finally, students were taught a clarifying strategy. In this step, students were instructed how to look for
unknown words or unclear sentences and use the surrounding text or a dictionary to determine the
meaning. Once a student gave a definition or synonym of an unknown word, they were asked to use it to
replace the word in the text and read the sentence aloud. Students were then asked prompting questions
such as, ‘‘Does that make sense to you?’’ If necessary, the interventionist remodeled clarifying unknown
words.
Find the Main Idea
After 4 weeks, students were correctly answering more questions, but still demonstrated difficulty
identifying the main idea and extracting ideas from the text. Thus, we changed the intervention to focus
on finding the main idea.
In teaching the main idea, students continued to practice the skills they learned during reciprocal
teaching (predict, activate prior knowledge, summarize, generate questions, and clarify), but also
received explicit instruction in finding the main idea and answering comprehension questions. The
interventionist first modeled by stating the main idea and students were then asked to answer the five
Read Naturally comprehension questions. To encourage students to reference the text in answering their
questions, they were given a highlighter and asked to highlight all of their answers in the text. If a student
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 44

6. was having trouble finding the correct answer, then the interventionist would refer the student to the text
and provide increasing assistance until the student obtained the correct answer. After students answered
all questions, the interventionist would go through each question with the group to ensure that each
student had the correct answers and knew where to find them in the text.
Understanding Inferential Questions
Amir, Jessica, and Noa demonstrated competence in finding the main idea, as evidenced by their ability
to correctly identify the main idea across multiple consecutive sessions. However, the number of
correctly answered comprehension questions only increased slightly. Further examination of the
comprehension questions for which the students provided correct and incorrect answers suggested that
the students demonstrated proficiency in understanding literal questions, but continued to struggle with
answering inferential questions.
Solving inferential questions requires students to identify the relationship between two objects or events
in the passage (Carnine et al., 2004). Thus there are three types of inferential questions: those for which
the relationship is stated, those for which the relationship is not stated, and those for which the
relationship must be induced. We used fourth-grade passages from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills as the stimuli with which to teach how to answer inferential questions. These passages were
selected because they included more and different types of comprehension questions than the Read
Naturally passages, and were longer in length.
Relationship stated. To teach inferential questions for which the relationship is stated, students were
given a rule (i.e., The more milk you drink, the stronger your bones) and a series of questions for which
the rule is required to find an answer (Chris drank one glass of milk. Jeff drank three glasses of milk. Who
is more likely to have stronger bones?). An interventionist modeled by stating the rule and relating the
answer to the rule before students were asked to identify the rule independently.
Relationship not stated. Some inferential questions require students to activate prior knowledge. To
teach inferential questions for which the relationship was not stated, the students were given a series of
questions for which they were expected to activate prior knowledge (i.e., The snow was falling as Cho
walked home from school. How do you think Cho felt: hot, cold, or tired?). The interventionist modeled
how to find clues in the passage that may help answer the questions (i.e. It’s snowing, so what do we
know about the temperature when it snows?).
Relationship induced. To help students understand how to answer questions for which the relationship
is induced, students were given questions for which they were required to build upon information that
was provided earlier in the text. For example, a passage may describe how Nicole had oatmeal and a
banana for breakfast and a salad for lunch. A question may ask: What do you think Nicole will choose for
dinner? Chicken and vegetables or a McDonald’s hamburger? The interventionist modeled how to use
information in the text to induce a rule (i.e., Nicole likes healthy foods) to answer the question.
Evaluating Effectiveness
Throughout the intervention, grade-level Maze passages obtained from AIMSweb (www.aimsweb.com)
were used to monitor the students’ progress. The Maze task requires students to read from grade-level
passages in which every fifth word is omitted. In place of the omitted word are three choices: the correct
word, a word that is somewhat closely related to the correct word (near miss), and a word that is not
directly related to the correct word (far miss). Students are asked to read the passage for 3 minutes and
to circle the word that is most likely to be the missing word.
The Maze assessments occurred once each week throughout the intervention period. Interventionists
recorded the number of correct responses as well as the number of errors and converted the data to a
correct-answers-per-minute metric.
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 45

7. The percentage of the five comprehension questions answered correctly was also recorded each week
and used as formative feedback for the intervention and for the students. The questions were written by
the publishers of the instructional material used. Percentage of questions answered correctly was used
to help determine if the students had learned the specific skill that was being taught. A consistent
increase in correct answering suggested that the students had acquired the skill. However, these data
were used to judge accuracy of individual skills and were interpreted somewhat qualitatively (e.g.,
observing the correct and incorrect answers to determine if the strategy was being used) and were not
used to monitor student progress. Maze data were used to monitor progress because the National Center
on RTI (2011) reported that Maze met basic scientific standards for monitoring student progress (e.g.,
sufficiently reliable, results in valid decisions, sensitive to growth).
Each student’s Maze baseline score in October approximated the 25th percentile for his or her grade
level (9 for fourth grade and 12 for fifth grade; Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2008), and the average of the three
scores was 10.67 correct responses per minute (CRPM). As shown in Figure 1, the students made
progress throughout the interventions, but dropped back somewhat after winter break. The final data
point, collected in February, approximated the 50th percentile for each student (18 for fourth grade and
21 for fifth; Hosp et al., 2008), and the average score was 23.33 CRPM. Both Amir and Jessica scored above
the 50th percentile for their grade at the conclusion of the intervention.
Amir’s Maze scores increased by an average of .81 CRPM each week, Jessica’s by .55, and Noa’s by .31
CRPM per week. Fuchs and Fuchs (2004) indicated that .40 CRPM per week was an acceptable criterion to
which Maze growth can be compared. Two of the students exceeded an average increase of .40 and one
student fell just below that benchmark. It is not surprising that Noa’s growth was somewhat less than the
other two students’ because he received support as an English language learner.
RESULTS
Although most RTI implementation efforts in elementary schools focus on reading fluency, we focused on
reading comprehension among fourth- and fifth-grade students and used a small-group intervention to do
so. The students made sufficient growth over the course of the intervention for the intervention to be
Figure 1. Average Maze Scores for the Three Students Receiving the Intervention
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 46

8. considered effective. In an RTI model, this would likely indicate that the students would discontinue in
the Tier 2 intervention and would return to Tier 1 instruction only. Thus, the progression of teaching
basic reading comprehension strategies, then identifying main ideas, and finally teaching how to make
inferences about the text seemed to be an effective approach.
We started the intervention with comprehension strategies because we predicted that, of the three, that
would likely be the intervention that could have the largest effect for these students. We saw an
immediate growth in our data, which suggested that the comprehension strategy intervention was
effective. However, our observations and student performance on comprehension questions suggested
that additional work in identifying the main idea and understanding inference questions was needed. We
suggest that teachers follow a similar pattern by starting with strategies but by also using formative
evaluation data to determine what skills need further instruction. Unfortunately, formative evaluation is
often perceived as simply monitoring student progress, but these data should also indicate what to teach
and how to best teach it (Burns, 2010). In other words, these data should be consistent with Stiggins’
(2005) assessment FOR learning paradigm, rather than be assessment of learning.
The small-group format for the intervention was time efficient because it only required 20 minutes each
time for three students. The students also seemed to perform well within the group, especially after we
implemented the contingency reinforcement for staying on task. Thus, practitioners could attempt small-
group interventions for reading comprehension as a Tier 2 intervention, as long as student progress is
closely monitored. However, future research is still needed to determine the best approach to deliver
Tier 2 comprehension interventions. There are many strategies and interventions to improve reading
comprehension. We selected strategies that were closely aligned with research, but perhaps others could
be delivered more efficiently but still maintain similar rates of growth. Our small groups also only
included three participants, which is somewhat smaller than what is recommended for Tier 2
interventions (Burns et al., 2006). We likely could have conducted these same interventions with more
students with little effort or change to the intervention, but future research is needed to apply this
approach with larger groups.
DISCUSSION
Teaching students reading comprehension strategies, how to identify the main idea, and how to make
inferences are components of a quality core reading instruction at the elementary level. Thus, classroom
teachers may also find interesting information within this article. However, our intervention differed from
quality core instruction in design and implementation. The current students were instructed in a small
group, which allowed for easy observation of student performance and immediate feedback, the likes of
which would be difficult to obtain in a classroom. Moreover, we made instructional changes based on
student data and did not follow a set curriculum, which is a level of instructional flexibility that is not
afforded most classroom teachers.
CONCLUSION
A potential limitation of our conclusions here is that we did not assess or account for the instruction that
students received in their fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. These students struggled with reading
comprehension at the beginning of the year, and were still identified as struggling readers in October.
That is not very much time to make growth in reading comprehension and perhaps the classroom
teachers made changes to their instruction in October for which we did not account. Moreover, we
collected limited baseline data with the Maze task because the students were identified as struggling
readers through other means. However, the increase in Maze scores could be due to increasing
familiarity with the assessment rather than our interventions. The large drop in Maze data after the
winter break suggests that familiarity may not be the causal factor, but we cannot rule it out. Finally, the
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 47

9. intervention was delivered by three different people each week, which is not a model that most schools
could, or arguably should, use. Thus, our example here presents only the first step in inquiry. We adapted
a model that could be used for small-group reading comprehension instruction, but empirical research is
needed to examine if the growth in comprehension was a direct result of the intervention and if the
intervention can be effectively delivered in different formats and with school personnel. However, these
data suggest that additional research is warranted and that our students made growth, which is the
ultimate goal for any reading teacher or interventionist.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2008). What really matters in response to intervention: Research-based designs. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., … Tilly, D. (2005). Response to
intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State
Directors of Special Education.
Block, C. C., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Improving reading comprehension instruction:
Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, M. K. (2010). Formative evaluation in school psychology: Informing the instructional process.
School Psychology Forum, 4, 22–33.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analysis of response-to-intervention research:
Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23,
381–394.
Burns, M. K., Deno, S. L., & Jimerson, S. (2007). Toward a unified response-to-intervention model. In S. R.
Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science
and practice of assessment and intervention. New York, NY: Springer.
Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2008). Response to intervention implementation in elementary and secondary
schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burns, M. K., Hall-Lande, J., Lyman, W., Rogers, C., & Tan, C. S. (2006). Tier 2 interventions within response-
to-intervention: Components of an effective approach. Communiqué, 35(4), 38–40.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of
reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
De Corte, E., Vershaffel, L., & Van de Ven A. (2001). Improving reading comprehension strategies in upper
primary school children: A design experiment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 531–559.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Determining adequate yearly progress from kindergarten through grade 6
with curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 25–37.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.
Hayes, L. L., & Robnolt, V. J. (2007). Data-driven professional development: The professional development
plan for a reading excellence act school. Reading Research and Instruction, 46, 95–119.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2008). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based
measurement. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R.
Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the
knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–326). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological
Review, 85, 363–394.
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 48

10. National Center on Response to Intervention. (2011). Progress monitoring tools. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/progressMonitoringTools
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups.
Bethesda, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for the NWEA Measures of Academic Progress
and Achievement Level tests. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Brown, R. (1998). Transactional instruction of
comprehension strategies in elementary grades. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-
regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 42–56). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Read Naturally. (2003). Read Naturally master’s edition teacher’s manual. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 479–531.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the
intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). Administration and scoring of reading Maze for use in general outcome
measurement (technical manual). Eden Prairie, MN: Edformation.
Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O. M., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing
response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158–173.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in
standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324–328.
Taylor, M. B., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2002). Effective schools and accomplished teachers:
Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low income schools. In B. M. Taylor & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished teachers (pp. 3–72). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
van den Broek, P., Lynch, J. S., Naslund, J., Ievers-Landis, C. E., & Verduin, K. (2003). The development of
comprehension of main ideas in narratives: Evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 707–718.
NASP | School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice Small-Group Comprehension Intervention | 49