Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42840344›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2026

Elementary Students Prefer Extra Reading Practice Before Reading in Front of Peers.

Kristen L Newell, Scott P Ardoin, Jeanne M Donaldson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kristen L NewellDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5501 USA.
Scott P ArdoinDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2176-4221
Jeanne M DonaldsonDepartment of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-5501 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1615-6061

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We used a multi-element design to determine student preferences for the arrangement of a repeated reading intervention, as either preparation for (i.e., pre-teaching) or review of reading material, and how these arrangements affected their likelihood of volunteering to read during small-group sessions. Three fourth-grade students, identified by their teacher as behind in reading proficiency, participated in small-group reading sessions together. We used a concurrent chains arrangement to assess preference for repeated reading timing. During the choice phase, all three participants selected the pre-teaching condition most frequently. During small group sessions, all three participants consistently volunteered to read their practiced pre-teaching passage at almost every opportunity. For all three participants, words read correctly per minute was higher during small group for the pre-teaching passage that was practiced during the morning intervention session in comparison to other conditions and other passages in the pre-teaching condition across all phases. These findings are consistent with literacy research demonstrating that repeated reading improves oral reading fluency for practiced passages and indicate that using repeated reading as a pre-teaching strategy enhances students' willingness to volunteer to read aloud. Additionally, these findings suggest that students prefer to practice before reading in a group setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01099-0.

Indexed as

Active student respondingLiteracyOral reading fluencyPreferenceReading interventionRepeated reading

Identifiers

PMID42840344
PMCPMC13638881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.