Search

The aim of this project was to develop an early reading intervention for children with Down syndrome based on the related behavioral phenotype. The intervention targeted learning of letter–sound correspondences, reading of decodable and high frequency words, and phonological awareness. We evaluated the feasibility and potential efficacy of the intervention with seven children between the ages of 6 and 8 years who participated in a series of multiple-probe across lessons single-case design studies. Results indicate a functional relation between the intervention and mastery of taught content for three students. Two students demonstrated positive although inconsistent response; two students demonstrated limited learning. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Many children with Down syndrome demonstrate deficits in phonological awareness, a prerequisite to learning to read in an alphabetic language. The purpose of this study was to determine whether adapting a commercially available phonological awareness program to better align with characteristics associated with the behavioral phenotype of Down syndrome would increase children's learning of phonological awareness, letter sounds, and words. Five children with Down syndrome, ages 6 to 8 years, participated in a multiple baseline across participants single case design experiment in which response to an adapted phonological awareness intervention was compared with response to the nonadapted program. Results indicate a functional relation between the adapted program and phonological awareness. Suggestions for future research and implications for practice are provided.

In this review, we explore the extent to which researchers evaluating the efficacy of Tier 2 elementary reading interventions within the framework of Response to Intervention reported on fidelity of implementation and alignment of instruction between tiers. A literature search identified 22 empirical studies from which conclusions were drawn. Results suggest that fidelity of implementation is typically monitored at Tier 2 and that alignment between tiers of intervention is often apparent yet not explicitly stated. However, researchers frequently neglect to report on fidelity of intervention in Tier 1, potentially limiting claims that can be made about the efficacy of subsequent Tier 2 intervention. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.