The Effects of Repeated Reading Interventions on the Oral Reading Fluency of Middle School Students With Reading Difficulties and Disabilities

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Teachers (clusters) were randomly assigned to conditions, satisfying the class-level (or stronger) randomization requirement.
    • "To meet the criteria for cRCT, we randomly assigned teachers to condition (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) using a lottery system." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We used a clustered randomized control trial (cRCT) to assess the effects of two reading interventions on oral reading fluency (Words Correct Per Minute, WCPM)." (p. 4) 2) "To meet the criteria for cRCT, we randomly assigned teachers to condition (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) using a lottery system." (p. 4) 3) "A total of 68 students (Repeated Reading Plus, n = 33; Silent Repeated Reading, n = 35) nested within 11 teachers were included in the analysis." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires randomization at the class level (or stronger), not student-within-class randomization (unless a tutoring-style exception applies). The paper explicitly describes a "clustered randomized control trial (cRCT)" and states that teachers were "randomly assigned" to condition, indicating students were assigned in teacher-based clusters. This teacher-cluster assignment is at least class-level in practice and reduces contamination risk compared with within-class student randomization. Criterion C is met because treatment assignment occurred at the teacher (cluster) level rather than at the individual-student-within-class level.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • The study used aimswebPlus oral reading fluency with standardized passages and standardized directions, indicating a standardized assessment.
    • "All texts used for assessment were standardized passages that students had not been exposed to prior to assessment." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The aimswebPlus oral reading fluency assessment was used as a screening measure, progress monitoring measure, and outcome measure in this study." (p. 4) 2) "All texts used for assessment were standardized passages that students had not been exposed to prior to assessment." (p. 4) 3) "All measures were administered according to the aimswebPlus standardized directions." (p. 4) 4) "AimswebPlus uses alternate form reliability for timed measures. The reading fluency measures have either 12 or 23 alternate forms for each grade level, with an average reliability coefficient of .95 for sixth grade, .94 for seventh grade, and .95 for eighth grade (Pearson, 2018)." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires a standardized, widely recognized exam-based assessment rather than a researcher-created outcome test tailored to the intervention. The paper identifies aimswebPlus oral reading fluency as the outcome measure and explicitly states that assessment texts were "standardized passages" administered using "standardized directions," with reported reliability. Although aimswebPlus is not a state end-of-year exam, it is presented as a standardized assessment system with standardized administration and psychometric support, matching the core intent of Criterion E (avoid custom, intervention-aligned outcome measures). Criterion E is met because the primary outcome uses aimswebPlus standardized assessment procedures and passages.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The longest stated start-to-measurement interval is about 11 weeks, which is shorter than a typical academic term (about 3–4 months).
    • "Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading were provided in 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, for a total of 21 sessions in all." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Teachers administered the pretest and posttest measures within 2 weeks prior to the start of the intervention and within 2 weeks after the completion of the intervention." (p. 4) 2) "A follow-up oral reading fluency measure was administered four weeks post intervention." (p. 4) 3) "Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading were provided in 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, for a total of 21 sessions in all." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires outcomes be measured at least one full academic term after the intervention begins (typically about 3–4 months). The paper reports a 7-week intervention, plus a follow-up administered "four weeks post intervention." Using the latest explicitly described timepoint, the interval from intervention start to follow-up is approximately 11 weeks. An ~11-week window is shorter than the typical term-length threshold required by ERCT Criterion T, and the paper does not document a longer follow-up spanning a full term after the start of intervention. Criterion T is not met because the documented start-to-latest-measurement interval is about 11 weeks, which is shorter than one academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The comparison condition procedures, group sizes, and baseline equivalence at pretest are reported, providing sufficient control/comparison group documentation.
    • "At pretest, students in the Repeated Reading Plus condition showed slightly higher oral reading fluency scores (M = 86.2, SD = 24.5) than students in the Silent Repeated Reading condition (M = 83.2, SD = 25.4); however, pretest scores did not significantly differ between Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading, F(1, 65.97) = .25, p = .61, suggesting equivalence between conditions (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) at prestest." (p. 7)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "In the comparison condition, Silent Repeated Reading, students repeatedly read each instructional passage silently to themselves three times and charted their fluency progress, but included no additional components." (p. 3) 2) "A total of 68 students (Repeated Reading Plus, n = 33; Silent Repeated Reading, n = 35) nested within 11 teachers were included in the analysis." (p. 6) 3) "At pretest, students in the Repeated Reading Plus condition showed slightly higher oral reading fluency scores (M = 86.2, SD = 24.5) than students in the Silent Repeated Reading condition (M = 83.2, SD = 25.4); however, pretest scores did not significantly differ between Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading, F(1, 65.97) = .25, p = .61, suggesting equivalence between conditions (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) at prestest." (p. 7) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires clear documentation of the control/comparison group, including what the group received, group sizes, and baseline information supporting comparability. The paper describes the Silent Repeated Reading comparison condition, reports analytic sample sizes in each condition, and reports pretest descriptive statistics and a statistical comparison showing no significant difference at pretest. This combination of procedural description and baseline equivalence reporting is sufficient to interpret the comparison. Criterion D is met because the comparison condition and baseline equivalence are explicitly documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomization occurred at the teacher (cluster) level rather than by assigning schools to conditions.
    • "To meet the criteria for cRCT, we randomly assigned teachers to condition (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) using a lottery system." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study took place in 10 middle schools across a single district in the southeast region of the United States." (p. 4) 2) "To meet the criteria for cRCT, we randomly assigned teachers to condition (i.e., Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading) using a lottery system." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires school-level randomization, meaning schools/sites are randomly assigned to treatment and control. Although the study took place in "10 middle schools," the paper states that random assignment was applied to teachers, not schools. Therefore, the study is not a school-level RCT under the ERCT definition. Criterion S is not met because the randomization unit is teachers, not schools.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The authors created key materials and trained teachers, and testing was teacher-administered, so independent third-party conduct is not clearly documented.
    • "Prior to the start of the study, the lead author trained the teachers in a group format to implement the intervention with fidelity." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Prior to the start of the study, seven reading fluency passages were written for each grade level by the second author to use instructionally." (p. 5) 2) "Prior to the start of the study, the lead author trained the teachers in a group format to implement the intervention with fidelity." (p. 5) 3) "Teachers administered the pretest and posttest measures within 2 weeks prior to the start of the intervention and within 2 weeks after the completion of the intervention." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires the evaluation be conducted independently from the intervention designers to reduce bias in implementation and/or outcome measurement. Here, the study reports that an author wrote instructional passages and the lead author trained teachers to implement the interventions. Outcome assessment was also teacher-administered. The paper does not provide an explicit statement that a third-party, independent evaluation team conducted implementation, measurement, or analysis separate from the intervention/material developers. Criterion I is not met because independent, third-party conduct is not clearly documented and authors played central roles in materials and training.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • The study duration (about 11 weeks from start to latest follow-up) is far shorter than 75% of an academic year, and because T is not met, Y is also not met.
    • "A follow-up oral reading fluency measure was administered four weeks post intervention." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading were provided in 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, for a total of 21 sessions in all." (p. 5) 2) "A follow-up oral reading fluency measure was administered four weeks post intervention." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcomes be measured at least 75% of an academic year after the intervention begins. This study documents a 7-week intervention and a follow-up "four weeks post intervention," yielding about 11 weeks from start to latest measurement. This is substantially shorter than an academic year. Additionally, per the ERCT dependency rule, if Criterion T is not met then Criterion Y is not met. Criterion Y is not met because the documented duration is far shorter than 75% of an academic year and Criterion T is not met.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • Both groups received the same schedule and session length, used the same passages and repeated-reading frequency, and answered the same comprehension questions; remaining differences are integral to the instructional contrast being tested.
    • "Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading were provided in 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, for a total of 21 sessions in all." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Both the Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading interventions took place during students’ regular 45-minute intervention period offered during the school day." (p. 5) 2) "Repeated Reading Plus and Silent Repeated Reading were provided in 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, for a total of 21 sessions in all." (p. 5) 3) "In the Repeated Reading Plus condition, teacher participants used following protocol: First, the teacher previewed three challenging, multisyllabic words from the passage, modeling how to pronounce them. Second, the teacher modeled fluent reading of the connected text by reading the passage aloud to the students at a conversational rate, while students following along in the passage." (p. 6) 4) "In the Silent Repeated Reading condition, teachers provided students with a copy of the same connected text passage used in the Repeated Reading Plus condition and instructed students to read the passage silently to themselves three times." (p. 6) 5) "After silently reading the connected text passage independently and monitoring their fluency progress over the course of three weekly sessions, students independently answered the same three inferential reading comprehension questions about the passage used in the Repeated Reading Plus condition." (p. 6) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B examines whether time and resources (time, materials, adult support) are balanced between conditions, unless differences are the intended treatment variable. Both conditions occur during the same school period and are delivered as 15-minute sessions, three times per week, for 7 weeks, using the same connected-text passages. Both conditions include repeated reading practice (three reads per session), timed monitoring, and answering the same inferential comprehension questions. Repeated Reading Plus includes additional instructional components (previewing multisyllabic words, teacher modeling, partner oral reading) but these occur within the same scheduled dosage and are the core instructional components defining the intervention contrast, not extra instructional time or separate budgetary inputs layered on top. Criterion B is met because overall dosage/time and materials are closely matched and the remaining differences reflect the intended instructional contrast.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent replication of this specific clustered RCT was found, and the paper itself only recommends that future studies replicate it.
    • "To provide better evidence of external validity, future studies of Repeated Reading Plus could replicate the study with a larger sample of students and teachers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds." (p. 13)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To provide better evidence of external validity, future studies of Repeated Reading Plus could replicate the study with a larger sample of students and teachers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds." (p. 13) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires independent replication by a different research team in a different context, published in a peer-reviewed outlet. The paper does not report that this specific trial has already been replicated; it explicitly frames replication as a future need. An internet search (performed on 2026-02-22) for the DOI and the specific intervention labels ("Repeated Reading Plus" and "Silent Repeated Reading") did not identify a peer-reviewed, independent replication study that explicitly reproduces this clustered teacher-randomized trial. Criterion R is not met because independent replication of this specific study was not found or documented.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Outcomes were limited to oral reading fluency (WCPM) rather than standardized exams across all core subjects.
    • "We used a clustered randomized control trial (cRCT) to assess the effects of two reading interventions on oral reading fluency (Words Correct Per Minute, WCPM)." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We used a clustered randomized control trial (cRCT) to assess the effects of two reading interventions on oral reading fluency (Words Correct Per Minute, WCPM)." (p. 4) 2) "The aimswebPlus oral reading fluency assessment was used as a screening measure, progress monitoring measure, and outcome measure in this study." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires standardized exam-based assessment across all main subjects taught at that level. This study evaluates reading interventions and measures outcomes using oral reading fluency (aimswebPlus WCPM). The paper does not report standardized outcome measures in other core subject areas (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies), and it does not provide a justified exception for all-subject coverage. Criterion A is not met because the study assesses reading fluency only, not standardized exams across all core subjects.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • The study reports only short follow-up (4 weeks post intervention), and because Y is not met, G is also not met; no later graduation-tracking follow-up publication was found.
    • "A follow-up oral reading fluency measure was administered four weeks post intervention." (p. 4)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "A follow-up oral reading fluency measure was administered four weeks post intervention." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation from the relevant educational stage. The only follow-up explicitly described is a measure administered "four weeks post intervention," which is far short of graduation tracking for middle school students. Per the ERCT dependency rule, if Criterion Y is not met then Criterion G is not met. Additionally, an internet search (performed on 2026-02-22) did not identify a subsequent follow-up paper by the same author team that tracked this cohort through graduation. Criterion G is not met because the paper does not track students to graduation and the year-duration prerequisite (Y) is not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper links to OSF for shared data but does not state protocol pre-registration, provide a registry ID for a pre-registration, or give a registration date showing it occurred before data collection.
    • "For more details, refer to the data shared through Open Science Framework at https:// osf.io/wznfe/" (p. 7)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "For more details, refer to the data shared through Open Science Framework at https:// osf.io/wznfe/" (p. 7) Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires a pre-registered protocol with verifiable timing: the paper should state that the study was pre-registered, provide the registry (e.g., OSF Registries) identifier/URL for the registration, and provide a registration date that is before study start/data collection. This paper references OSF as a place where "data" are shared, but it does not claim that the study protocol was pre-registered, does not provide a pre-registration identifier, and does not provide a registration date or a comparison between registration date and data-collection start. Criterion P is not met because pre-registration (with verifiable timing) is not documented.