The effectiveness of a cognitive-plus-motivational reading intervention: A multiple-baseline study with four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The effectiveness of a cognitive-plus-motivational reading intervention: A multiple-baseline study with four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties.
Authors: McBreen, Miriam, Savage, Robert
Source: Educational & Child Psychology. Mar2023, Vol. 40 Issue 1, p96-115. 20p.
Subjects: Reading intervention, Reading comprehension, Fluency (Language learning), Self-efficacy in students, Academic achievement
Abstract: Aims: We aimed to examine the impact of supplementing cognitive reading intervention with supports for reading motivation on the reading motivation (reading interest and self-efficacy) and reading fluency of four Year four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties. Method/rationale: Case studies of four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties were conducted using a multiple-baseline across-participants design. The effects of a combined Cognitive-plus-Motivational intervention (experimental phase) were compared to those of a Cognitive-Only intervention (baseline phase) using probes for reading fluency, interest, and self-efficacy. Scores on each probe were plotted and analysed by combining visual analysis and the Process Control Chart method of analysis. Findings: Results suggest that compared to a Cognitive-Only intervention, the Cognitive-plus-Motivational intervention improved the fluency of three participants, and the interest and self-efficacy of two out of four participants. Findings provided insight into individual patterns of response to the intervention, with the greatest impact on fluency observed for students with the lowest initial reading skills. Limitations: Caution is needed in generalising findings due to the study's small sample size, the lack of a control group and the potential presence of experimenter bias. Conclusions: The findings presented here provide preliminary support for the benefits of supplementing reading intervention with instruction to foster reading motivation on the outcomes of pupils at-risk for reading difficulties and provide insight into patterns of individual response to motivational intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:Aims: We aimed to examine the impact of supplementing cognitive reading intervention with supports for reading motivation on the reading motivation (reading interest and self-efficacy) and reading fluency of four Year four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties. Method/rationale: Case studies of four pupils at-risk for reading difficulties were conducted using a multiple-baseline across-participants design. The effects of a combined Cognitive-plus-Motivational intervention (experimental phase) were compared to those of a Cognitive-Only intervention (baseline phase) using probes for reading fluency, interest, and self-efficacy. Scores on each probe were plotted and analysed by combining visual analysis and the Process Control Chart method of analysis. Findings: Results suggest that compared to a Cognitive-Only intervention, the Cognitive-plus-Motivational intervention improved the fluency of three participants, and the interest and self-efficacy of two out of four participants. Findings provided insight into individual patterns of response to the intervention, with the greatest impact on fluency observed for students with the lowest initial reading skills. Limitations: Caution is needed in generalising findings due to the study's small sample size, the lack of a control group and the potential presence of experimenter bias. Conclusions: The findings presented here provide preliminary support for the benefits of supplementing reading intervention with instruction to foster reading motivation on the outcomes of pupils at-risk for reading difficulties and provide insight into patterns of individual response to motivational intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:02671611
DOI:10.53841/bpsecp.2023.40.1.96