The purpose of this study was to compare two oral reading fluency treatments (repeated readings and phrase drill error correction) which differ in the way they prompt student responding. Repeated readings (RR) and phrase drill (PD) error correction were alternated with a baseline and a reward condition within an alternating treatments design with an 8-year old boy referred for reading difficulties. Results indicate that RR and PD improved the participant's reading fluency equally well relative to both baseline and reward conditions. Results are discussed in terms of the types and relevance of response opportunities afforded by each intervention. ©Springer |
