Developing a profile to predict student response to treatment with Fast ForWord programs

Abstract

Matching reading deficits to appropriate intervention programs is a challenge given the number of treatment options available to educators. The Fast ForWord (FFW) computerized intervention series has been marketed as a way to treat underlying causes of poor reading skill; i.e., substandard levels of basic language skill, phonemic awareness, and/or phonics application. If the programs work as claimed, then completion of Fast ForWord should improve the next reading subskill developed after phonics, oral reading fluency. Part 1 of this study involves a treatment ( n = 72) versus comparison ( n = 84) group two by two ANOVA to evaluate that hypothesis. No effect for FFW is found ( p = .84). Application of decision rules from Response to Intervention (RTI) models classifies positive changes in risk category at a greater rate for the comparison group ( n = 31) than for the FFW group ( n = 20) ( X 2 = 3.81, (1), p = .05). Pre-intervention language scores for the FFW group are compared to assist with intervention placement decisions. Differences in mean language scores are not significant ( p = .85) between the two groups [positive response ( n = 19) versus low response ( n = 57)]. In a binary logistic regression of quartile membership for language scores, no score ranges predict membership ( X 2 = 4.75, (8), p > .05). Measuring treatment effect with ORF is not recommended. The use of pre-intervention language and ORF scores below the 25th percentile as indicators of a positive change in oral reading fluency following FFW treatment also is not recommended. However, future research that considers language scores along with other curriculum-based measures of prereading skill either as pre-intervention indicators or outcome measures is recommended.