This section analyzes three 5th grade students. The profiles are composites of actual 5th graders with reading difficulties.
All three students had same RC score at the beginning of the year, which was considerably below the grade level benchmark. In terms of the Simple View formula, these students can be considered to have a low RC score of 20%.
The three students were placed in the same intervention group that focused on improving content knowledge and teaching comprehension strategies. The goal was for students to achieve an RC score of 50% or higher.
Description of varying responses to intervention
After four months of intervention, the three students in the intervention class had different improvement in RC scores. The intervention was successful for Student A, who exceeded benchmark after intervention. Student B had almost no improvement in comprehension. Student C almost reached the goal of 50% for an RC score.
Table 1: Pre- and Post-Intervention Reading Comprehension (RC) Scores
| Student | Improvement in RC | Increase in RC Score | RC Score Before Intervention | RC Score After Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Strong | 50% | 20% | 70% |
| B | Minimal | 5% | 20% | 25% |
| C | Moderate | 20% | 20% | 40% |
Using the Simple View to explain different responses to intervention
The Simple View can explain why the students responded so differently to the same instruction. After intervention, each student’s decoding skills were assessed. We can reasonably assume that each student’s decoding skills were essentially the same prior to intervention because their intervention was primarily for comprehension, with only 5 of 30 minutes daily intervention spent on word study. Table 2 shows each student’s decoding (D) scores after intervention.
Table 2: Post-Intervention Decoding (D) Scores
(These scores are also an estimate of pre-intervention decoding scores because intervention focused almost solely on comprehension strategies.)
| Student | Decoding (D) Score |
|---|---|
| A | 80% |
| B | 25% |
| C | 40% |
Using pre-intervention RC scores and estimating that D scores were virtually the same pre- and post-intervention, the Simple View formula can be used to estimate each student’s LC score prior to intervention. With both the D and LC scores, each student can be placed in one of the three types of reading difficulties defined by the Simple View (see previous section). This placement is based on pre-intervention RC scores.
Table 3 shows the estimated Pre-Intervention LC score for each student, using actual RC and D scores from Table 2. Table 3 also places each student into one of the three types of pre-intervention reading difficulties defined by the Simple View.
Table 3: Description of Students’ Pre-Intervention Reading Difficulties Based on the Simple View of Reading
| Student | Reading Difficulty Per Simple View | R Score Before Intervention | Estimated D Score from Table 2 | Estimated LC Score Before Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Poor Language Comprehension | Very low (20%) | Minimal weakness (80%) | Very low (25%) |
| B | Poor Decoder | Very low (20%) | 25% | Minimal weakness (80%) |
| C | Weaknesses in Both D and LC | Very low (20%) | Low (40%) | Low (50%) |
Explaining different responses to intervention based on RC, D, and estimated LC scores
Each of the three students had the same low reading comprehension (RC) score, but responded very differently to intervention. The discussion below views each student’s response to intervention based on the Simple View.
Student A: Poor at Language Comprehension
Student A had the greatest improvement in reading comprehension after the intervention (Table 1).
Student A’s post-intervention RC score exceeded the goal of 50%. He had strong decoding skills both pre- and post-intervention (Tables 2 and 3). The primary cause of his low reading comprehension was a significant deficit in language comprehension (LC), as evidenced by his low estimated pre-intervention LC score of 25%. Therefore, the intervention targeted Student A’s weakness, and it was successful.
If the original assessment process had provided both RC and D scores, we could have predicted the success of the comprehension instruction. We can use the Simple View formula to estimate Student A’s LC score after intervention.
- LC = RC ÷ D
- .875 = .70 ÷ .80
Student A’s LC score improved from 25% to 87.5% after intervention. This student received the instruction that targeted his weakness, and he experienced dramatic improvement to his RC, score from 20% to 70%. The intervention targeted the student’s weakness, and it was successful.
Student B: Poor Decoder
Student B had the least effect from the intervention. The Simple View makes it very clear that the primary cause of Student B’s low reading comprehension (RC) score was very weak decoding (D) skills, with a post-intervention D score of 25%. With an LC score at 80%, his language comprehension abilities were relatively strong. It follows that his RC scores increased only minimally (Table 1) after intervention aimed at improving his comprehension skills, which were already relatively strong.
If the original assessment process had provided both RC and D scores, we would have predicted that improving Student B’s language comprehension would not translate to a material improvement in reading comprehension. Indeed, Student B’s RC score increased only minimally from 20% to 25%.
We’ll use the Simple View formula to estimate Student B’s LC score after intervention.
- LC = RC ÷ D
- 1.0 = .25 ÷ .25
The formula shows that Student B’s LC score improved from 80% to 100%. Improving LC to a perfect score resulted in only a minimal improvement to RC (from 20% to 25%) Student B still had low Reading Comprehension even after the four-month intervention.
Suppose the instruction had targeted decoding and the student’s D score had increased from 25% to 65% and LC had stayed the same at 80%. This improvement in decoding skills would have resulted in increasing RC to 52%, even with no improvement to language comprehension.
- RC = D x LC
- .52 = .65 ÷ .80
A 40% increase in D results in an RC score of 52%, even when language comprehension remains the same. This demonstrates that the student gets a “bigger bang for the buck” to RC by teaching decoding, which is the student’s area of weakness. (Of course, if there were time to target both D and LC, the gain would be even greater. But usually intervention time is limited. After the student becomes a strong decoder, intervention can switch to improving language comprehension if the need still remains.)
Student C: Weaknesses in Both Areas
Student C has moderate deficits in both decoding and language comprehension. Therefore, the comprehension-focused intervention improved one of his weaknesses, which is reflected in the moderate improvement in his RC score (Table 1). However, Student C still needs to improve his decoding skills before he will realize significant improvements in RC, such as those seen for Student A.
Student C’s RC score of 20% is significantly lower than either his D or LC scores because of the multiplier effect of the Simple View formula. This student needs to improve both D and LC to experience significant improvement in RC. The comprehension-focused intervention did improve his LC skills. Using his post-intervention RC score and his D score, the Simple View formula shows that after intervention Student C’s LC scores increased to 100%.
- LC = RC ÷ D
- 1.0 = .40 ÷ .40
Student C’s RC will improve even further by raising his D score with instruction focused explicitly on decoding.
