This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]

On: 07 December 2014, At: 12:00

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uaty20

Use of Reading Pen Assistive Technology to

Accommodate Post-Secondary Students with Reading
Disabilities
a a a
Ara J. Schmitt PhD , Elizabeth McCallum PhD , Jenna Hennessey MSEd , Temple Lovelace
a b
PhD & Renee O. Hawkins PhD
a
School of Education , Duquesne University , Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania
b
School of Education , University of Cincinnati , Cincinatti , Ohio , USA
Accepted author version posted online: 08 Feb 2012.Published online: 27 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Ara J. Schmitt PhD , Elizabeth McCallum PhD , Jenna Hennessey MSEd , Temple Lovelace PhD & Renee
O. Hawkins PhD (2012) Use of Reading Pen Assistive Technology to Accommodate Post-Secondary Students with Reading
Disabilities, Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 24:4, 229-239, DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2012.659956

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2012.659956

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Assistive Technology® , 24:229–239, 2012
Copyright © 2012 RESNA
ISSN: 1040-0435 print/1949-3614 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2012.659956
Use of Reading Pen Assistive Technology
to Accommodate Post-Secondary Students
with Reading Disabilities
Ara J. Schmitt, PhD,1
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
Elizabeth McCallum, PhD,1
Jenna Hennessey, MSEd,1
Temple Lovelace, PhD,1 and
Renee O. Hawkins, PhD2
1 reading pens on the comprehension of school-aged students, and no known
School of Education,
Duquesne University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2
School of Education, University
of Cincinnati, Cincinatti, Ohio
Address correspondence to Ara J.
Schmitt, Duquesne University, School
Education, G3A Canevin Hall,
600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282.
E-mail: schmitta2106@duq.edu
ABSTRACT Reading pens are a form of assistive technology that may be
used to bypass weak word decoding and vocabulary skills of students with
reading disabilities. Only two known studies have examined the effects of
studies have been published regarding post-secondary students. The present
study investigated the effects of reading pen assistive technology on the
comprehension accuracy and rate of three post-secondary students with uni-
versity-recognized reading disabilities. An alternating treatments design was
implemented to compare the effects of (1) a reading pen decoding accommo-
dation, (2) concurrent reading pen decoding and vocabulary accommodations,
and (3) a no-accommodation control condition on the comprehension of
the three participants when provided college level difficulty reading passages.
Results indicate that use of a reading pen did not uniformly improve the
comprehension of the post-secondary students. However, the student with the
poorest reading skills benefitted the most. Discussion focuses on explanations
for the results, practical implications for post-secondary students with reading
disabilities, and future directions for study.
KEYWORDS reading accommodation, reading assistive technology, reading pen
INTRODUCTION
The number of students with disabilities attending colleges and universities
has dramatically increased across recent decades. Henderson (2001) reported
that the percentage of full-time post-secondary students who self-identify as
having any type of disability rose from 2.3% in 1978 to 9% in 2000. Although
statistics vary regarding the types of disabilities represented by post-secondary
students, there is some consensus that more than a third of these students have
learning disabilities (Harbour, 2004; Henderson, 2001). Of those students with
disabilities that attend college, the majority have been formally diagnosed with
a reading disability as it is the most common learning disability across grades
and ages (Hudson, High, & Al Otaiba, 2007; Shaywitz, 2003).
229
 Post-secondary education is an important transi-
tional outcome for students with learning disabilities.
A college degree may serve as a protective factor against
commonly experienced poor outcomes for students
with disabilities, like employment obstacles. Madaus
(2006) reported that students with disabilities who
graduate from college do not differ from their non-
disabled peers in terms of employment rates, benefits,
and annual salaries. Accordingly, these graduates expe-
rience more favorable outcomes across the lifespan
than individuals with disabilities who do not earn
college degrees (Shaw, Madaus, & Banerjee, 2009).
Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act is a
federal law designed to protect the rights of indi-
viduals with disabilities engaged in any federally
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
funded programming, including post-secondary
schools. Although Section 504 entitles elementary
and secondary students with disabilities to a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE), post-secondary
schools are not held to this same standard. Instead,
Section 504 mandates that post-secondary schools
must provide appropriate academic adjustments to
qualified students based upon type of disability and
individual needs (Madaus & Shaw, 2004). These
adjustments may include modifications to academic
requirements and, germane to this study, auxiliary
aids and services that may be applied as learning
accommodations.
Accommodations are not meant to create a compet-
itive advantage, but “level the playing field” between
students with and without disabilities by removing
disability-related impediments. Formally defined, an
accommodation is any method that removes construct-
irrelevant barriers to accessing material (Ketterlin-
Geller, Yovanoff, & Tindal, 2007). In the case of a col-
lege student with a basic reading disability (dyslexia),
the inability to fluently decode words impedes the stu-
dent’s ability to comprehend material in textbooks and
written course materials (Gillon, 2007; Morris et al.,
1998; National Reading Panel, 2000; Shaywitz, 2003;
Wolf & Bowers, 1999).
The listening-while-reading (LWR) accommodation
allows students to follow along while listening to text in
order to improve comprehension. Several studies have
demonstrated that LWR may be used to improve the
performance of school-aged students with reading dif-
ficulties (e.g., Hale et al., 2005; Rose, 1984; Rose &
Beattie, 1986). However, these LWR studies required
live models (teachers or peers) to read aloud passages
A. J. Schmitt et al.
or word lists. This LWR implementation procedure is
taxing on human resources and is not likely realistic for
most college students who must be independent, self-
regulated learners. A means to self-regulate the LWR
accommodation for college students is through the
use of assistive technology devices (Lee & Templeton,
2008; Raskind & Higgins, 1998).
Assistive technology devices include any piece
of equipment used to improve or maintain the
functioning of individuals with disabilities (Assistive
Technology Act, 1998; Wepner & Bowes, 2004). These
run the gamut from low-tech tools, such as stopwatches
and metronomes, to high-tech devices, such as comput-
erized accommodations (McCallum & Schmitt, 2011;
Reed, 2007). An alternative to LWR using live read-
ing models involves text-to-speech assistive technology
that converts written material to spoken language.
These devices have been demonstrated to increase the
comprehension of primary and secondary students
with reading disabilities (Elkind, Cohen, & Murray,
1993; Izzo, Yurick, & McArrell, 2009; Montali &
Lewandowski, 1996; Moorman, Boon, Keller-Bell,
Stagliano, & Jeffs, 2010; Schmitt, McCallum, Hale,
Obeldobel, & Dingus, 2009).
Few studies have investigated the use of text-
to-speech assistive technology with college students.
Existing data suggest that for many students, the com-
prehension of material is improved when passages are
read by the technology compared to a no-treatment
control (Elkind, Black, & Murray, 1996; Higgins &
Raskind, 1997). An interesting finding of these college
studies is that comprehension gains are not uniformly
present and when participant data are aggregated,
changes in comprehension are not statistically present.
That being said, data suggest that comprehension with-
out use of the technology is inversely related to the
amount of comprehension gains that come from use of
the assistive technology accommodation. Those with
the greatest reading difficulties benefited the most from
the text-to-speech technology. Similar to findings of
studies conducted with school-aged students, however,
comprehension of text was not raised to the average
range. In sum, given the time and expense associated
with text-to-speech software that reads entire passages,
reading pens may be a more cost effective means for
providing LWR support.
The reading pen is a handheld optical character
recognition (OCR) device that allows students to scan
printed text either a word or a line at a time. The
230
 scanned text appears on a built-in LCD screen and can
be converted to speech through digital voice. Potential
benefits of the reading pen as an accommodation
for college students with reading disabilities include
its portability, relatively low cost compared to OCR
systems requiring the use of a computer, and ability
to scan individual words instead of entire pages or
chapters. In addition to decoding, and like other text-
to-speech tools, reading pens allow students to access
definitions of unknown words.
To date, two empirical studies have been conducted
evaluating the effectiveness of the reading pen technol-
ogy as an accommodation for students with reading
disabilities. Higgins and Raskind (2005) found that
school-aged students with significant reading disabili-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
ties were able to comprehend more difficult material
on a reading inventory using reading pens than they
could on their own (comprehension standard score of
85 versus 80). This study did not test the hypothe-
sis that reading pens could effectively accommodate
readers when provided grade-level material, however.
Schmitt, McCallum, Rubinic, and Hawkins (2011)
evaluated the use of reading pens on the reading com-
prehension accuracy and rates of high school students
with reading disabilities when provided grade-level pas-
sages. Results indicated that reading pen use actually
impaired the comprehension of some students. Not
only did the students’ comprehension not improve,
by the nature of using a reading pen, it took the stu-
dents longer to finish individual passages. The authors
suggested that the use of the reading pens may have
disrupted the students’ reading fluency, which in turn,
impeded their comprehension of the text.
Interestingly, these results are in contrast with the
results of the Higgins and Raskind (2005) reading pen
study. A possible explanation for the differences in
findings between the two published reading pen stud-
ies involves the assessment procedures and specifically,
the levels of reading material provided. Higgins and
Raskind found reading pens to aid students in compre-
hending reduced grade-level material whereas Schmitt
et al. found reading pens to impede students’ compre-
hension of on grade-level material. Despite these differ-
ences, neither study found reading pen usage increased
reading performance to a functionally acceptable level.
Although reading pens are currently marketed for
use by college students, and have been suggested to
be appropriate for use in the post-secondary setting
(Raskind & Higgins, 1998), research demonstrating the
231
effectiveness of this technology with college students
could not be found after searching the peer-reviewed
literature in PsycInfo and ERIC databases. If found to
be effective, reading pens may be particularly benefi-
cial for college students who must read college-level
texts, even with Section 504 accommodations in place.
Furthermore, the portability and self-regulated use of
the reading pen may be particularly conducive to the
college environment.
METHOD
Participants
Participants included three undergraduate students
enrolled in a Mid-Atlantic United States private uni-
versity who were recognized by the school’s disability
concerns office as being students with reading disabil-
ities. The university’s criteria for learning ability status
was a significant discrepancy between a student’s abil-
ity as measured by an individually administered IQ
test, and reading achievement as measured by an indi-
vidual achievement test. Each participant received ser-
vices and accommodations through a Section 504 plan.
In order to recruit these participants, an electronic invi-
tation to participate in a study was emailed by the
disability concerns office to all students recognized as
having a reading learning disability. Using this proce-
dure, the students with reading disabilities remained
anonymous to the investigators. All three undergrad-
uate students who contacted the primary investigator
were included as participants in the study. Review of a
recent psychological report by the investigators verified
the disability status of each participant. All participants
earned IQ scores within the Average range. Because
individual achievement testing was completed earlier in
each student’s university career, the researchers admin-
istered three reading curriculum-based measurement
(CBM) probes to each participant in order to establish
the most current oral reading fluency levels. As college
level CBM norms are not available, the performance of
each was compared to a 12th grade student in the spring
using AIMSweb (widely used CBM system) norms
(AIMSweb, 2008).
Joseph was a 20-year-old, Caucasian freshman whose
major involved a helping profession. Most recent eval-
uation results revealed the presence of a reading disabil-
ity. His median oral reading fluency performance was
131 words correct per minute (below 10th percentile).
Reading Pen Assistive Technology
 The second participant, Tim, was a 21-year-old
Caucasian student who was identified as having a
reading disability, as well as receptive and expressive
language disorders. He was sophomore who majored
in a hard science. Tim’s median oral reading fluency
performance was 144 words correct per minute (below
10th percentile).
Liz was a 21-year-old, Caucasian student majoring
in a social science. A reading disability was docu-
mented in her most recent psychological evaluation.
Her median oral reading fluency performance was
81 words correct per minute (below 10th percentile).
Materials
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
The reading passages and comprehension questions
used in this study were taken from Timed Readings in
Literature (Spargo, 1989), a series used in previous inter-
vention studies involving school-aged students (e.g.,
Hale et al., 2005; Schmitt, Hale, McCallum, & Mauck,
2011; Schmitt et al., 2011). This series contains a 13th
(college) grade-level book comprised of 50, 400 word
passages. The difficulty of passages within each grade
level book was controlled by using Fry’s readability
index (1968). This index calculates readability by con-
sidering the number of syllables in words and the num-
ber of sentences present in each passage. Each passage
is approximately one 50th of a grade-level more diffi-
cult than the preceding story. Following each passage
are 10 multiple choice comprehension questions (5 fac-
tual and 5 inferential). Only the first 30 passages and
sets of comprehension questions were photocopied for
use by the participants. Passages were counterbalanced
across conditions and sessions to control for passage
difficulty. No participant was exposed to a specific
reading passage twice across the study’s procedures.
During the decoding accommodation (RP-D) con-
dition and decoding plus vocabulary accommodations
(RP-DV) condition, students were provided with a
Readingpen® Advanced Edition (2006) as developed
by Wizcom Technologies. The handheld Readingpen
is placed against the page before the word(s) of inter-
est and then swept across the text in a fluid motion.
The scanned content then appears in black letters on
the Readingpen’s LCD screen. Buttons (arrows) on
the Readingpen are then used to select word pro-
nunciation, syllabication, or definition. The student
also may elect to have this information, including a
word’s definition, read aloud by a digital voice. The
A. J. Schmitt et al.
Readingpen also allows the dictionary function to be
locked from use. Earbuds can be worn to avoid dis-
tracting others and volume may be adjusted to a
comfortable level. This study locked the vocabulary
function and allowed access to the decoding func-
tion for the RP-D condition, and permitted use of
the decoding and vocabulary functions for the RP-DV
condition.
Prior to beginning the experimental sessions, a par-
ticipant Readingpen competency checklist was com-
pleted. An intervention integrity checklist was used to
collect treatment integrity data and stopwatches were
used to record the amount of time students spent
reading the passages. Participants completed an inter-
vention acceptability rating form at the conclusion of
the study.
General Experimental Procedures
Data collection was scheduled for 10 sessions across
consecutive days of student availability. Session one
was comprised of a 45 min training protocol designed
by the first author. The protocol consisted of an
explanation of Readingpen functions, research assistant
modeling of functions, guided student practice, and a
checklist to document participant ability to fluidly use
the technology. Specifically, it was explained that the
pen could be used to scan unknown printed words that
would then appear on the LCD screen. At that point,
buttons (arrows) on the pen could be used to select
the function that would be of assistance. In the case of
this study, the functions were access to audible pronun-
ciation of words and definitions of words, depending
on treatment condition. The participant was then pro-
vided a reading passage and prompted to use the
reading pen functions until the participant felt com-
fortable using the technology. The 45 minute training
session culminated with the completion of a perfor-
mance checklist to verify each participant was able
to effectively use functions of the Readingpen. The
checklist included components such as fluidly scanned
unknown words, efficiently retrieved the audible pro-
nunciation of a scanned word, efficiently retrieved the
definition of a scanned word, efficiently retrieved the
audible presentation of the definition, and so forth.
Researchers also administered the three CBM probes
used to determine current reading fluency levels dur-
ing the first session. The experimental procedures were
then applied across the remaining nine sessions. All
232
 procedures were individually conducted in a distrac-
tion free room within the university’s reading clinic.
Each intervention session, which lasted approximately
20 min, was comprised of 3 counterbalanced condi-
tions (i.e., RP-D, RP-DV, and C). A script was used
to ensure uniform and thorough instructions for all
participants. Scheduled sessions were completed by all
participants. At the end of the study, rating forms were
completed by each student to assess acceptability of
Readingpens as an accommodation. To acknowledge
student participation, each was provided with a gift
card at the conclusion of the study.
Intervention Procedures
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
No-accommodation control condition
During the control condition, participants read pas-
sages and answered questions without any Readingpen
assistance. Participants were given the following
instructions prior to the start of this condition: “You
are going to read a short story on your own. Read it
very carefully to yourself because when you are fin-
ished you are going to answer some questions about
what you read. Are you ready?” After providing any
necessary clarification, the researcher said, “Begin,”
and started the stopwatch. When the student finished
reading the passage, the researcher recorded the time
spent reading the passage in seconds. The participant
then was provided the corresponding 10 comprehen-
sion questions on a sheet of paper. Participants were
instructed to carefully read each question and circle the
best answer. Unlimited time was available to complete
the comprehension questions.
Decoding accommodation condition
At the start of the RP-D condition, participants were
given a Readingpen accompanied by earbuds with a
volume control. Participants were allowed to adjust the
volume as needed. The vocabulary function was locked
for use so that only the decoding function could be
accessed. The participants were provided the following
instructions:
“You are going to read a short story using a Readingpen.
As you read the passage, you may use the Readingpen to have
words read aloud to you. Read very carefully because when you
are finished you are going to answer some questions about what
you read. Are you ready?”
233
After answering any questions, the researcher said,
“Begin,” and started the stopwatch. The number of
times the Readingpen was used in the session was
tracked to confirm that the participant accessed the
available accommodation. When the participant fin-
ished reading the passage, the stopwatch was stopped
and the time spent reading the passage was recorded
in seconds. The associated comprehension questions
were provided on a sheet of paper and participants were
instructed to carefully read each question and circle the
best answer. Unlimited time to complete the questions
was available. The participants were allowed to use the
decoding function of the Readingpen on the passage
and comprehension questions.
Decoding and vocabulary accommodations
condition
At the start of the RP-DV condition, participants
were given a Readingpen accompanied by earbuds with
a volume control. Participants adjusted the volume to a
comfortable level. Prior to the start of the RP-DV con-
dition, the researcher ensured the vocabulary function
was unlocked so that participants could access both the
decoding and vocabulary functions. The participants
were read the following directions:
“You are going to read a short story using a Readingpen.
As you read the passage, you may use the Readingpen to have
words read aloud to you and get the definitions of unknown
words. If you would like for the Readingpen to read the defi-
nitions to you, that is allowed too. Read very carefully because
when you are finished you are going to answer some questions
about what you read. Are you ready?”
After providing any necessary clarification, the stop-
watch was started. Each instance the participant used
the Readingpen was recorded to document that the
accommodations were being used. When the partici-
pant finished the passage, the stopwatch was stopped
and the time spent reading the passage was recorded in
seconds. The corresponding 10 comprehension ques-
tions were provided with the instructions to carefully
consider each question and circle the best answer.
Like the other conditions, unlimited time to com-
plete the questions was available. The participants were
allowed to use the decoding and vocabulary functions
of the Readingpen on the passage and comprehension
questions as needed. Comprehension questions were
reviewed to ensure that the vocabulary function would
not directly provide the correct answer.
Reading Pen Assistive Technology
 Experimental Design and
Dependent Variables
Similar to previous reading accommodation stud-
ies (e.g., Hale et al., 2005; Higgins & Raskind, 1997;
Schmitt, McCallum, Hale, Obeldobel, & Dingus,
2009), an alternating-treatments design was used to
compare the effects of the two accommodation condi-
tions (RP-D and RP-DV) and the no-accommodation
control condition on reading comprehension. The
conditions were counterbalanced across sessions to
control for order effects. This type of design allows for
the three conditions to be applied to equivalent tasks
within an experimental session that also accounts for
history and spillover effects (Poncy, Skinner, & Jaspers,
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
2007; Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985; Skinner &
Shapiro, 1989).
The dependent variables of this study included
comprehension accuracy and comprehension rate.
Comprehension accuracy per student, condition, and
session was determined by the number of correctly
answered multiple-choice comprehension questions
(out of 10). Comprehension rate was also computed
per student, condition, and session. Comprehension
rate was calculated by dividing the number of cor-
rectly answered questions by the number of seconds
spent engaged with the passage and then multiplying
by 60 (Skinner, 2008). Effect sizes regarding the depen-
dent variables were computed by subtracting the mean
performance of two conditions and then dividing by
the pooled standard deviation of the two conditions
(Weiner, Sheridan, & Jenson, 1998).
Treatment Integrity and Interscorer
Agreement
A treatment integrity protocol was constructed for
each condition. This checklist determined whether
proper procedures were followed for each condition.
For example, the checklist for the RP-D condition
included the following: locked the vocabulary func-
tion, provided correct passage, read decoding condi-
tion script, started timer, stopped timer when student
finished reading and recorded elapsed time, provided
comprehension questions and read comprehension
script, and recorded number of times the Readingpen
was used. One session per participant was observed by
a second researcher to gather treatment integrity data.
As another estimate of treatment integrity, use of the
A. J. Schmitt et al.
reading pen was closely monitored and recorded by
an experimenter. A second researcher also reviewed 24
(30%) of the comprehension assessments for scoring
accuracy.
RESULTS
In order to assess the impact of reading pen accom-
modations on post-secondary students, the reading
comprehension accuracy and rates of three undergrad-
uate college students was obtained across two reading
pen accommodation conditions (RP-V and RP-DV)
and a no-accommodation control condition. Results
for comprehension accuracy are presented first, fol-
lowed by the results for comprehension rate. With
respect to treatment integrity, results showed that the
primary researcher implemented the experimental pro-
cedures with 100% accuracy. With the exception of a
single RP-D passage (Joseph), each of the three par-
ticipants used the assistive technology at least one
time across each of the 18 passages on which use of
the Readingpen was permitted. Joseph’s median use
of the Readingpen was one time per accommoda-
tion condition. Tim’s median use was two times per
accommodation condition. Liz’s median use of the
Readingpen functions was four times per accommoda-
tion condition. One hundred percent agreement was
present regarding scoring accuracy of the comprehen-
sion assessments.
Data Analysis of Comprehension
Accuracy
Consistent across all three students, comprehen-
sion accuracy did not incrementally increase from the
control condition, to the RP-D condition, and then
to the RP-DV condition. Figure 1 displays students’
comprehension accuracy as a function of condition
and Table 1 includes the means and standard devia-
tions of correctly answered comprehension questions.
For Joseph, comprehension accuracy was best in the
RP-D condition, followed by the control condition,
and then the RP-DV condition. For Tim, the RP-D
condition resulted in the greatest comprehension accu-
racy, trailed by identical performances in the control
and RP-DV conditions. Liz’s comprehension accuracy
was highest in the RP-D and RP-DV conditions, fol-
lowed by the control condition. Also common across
participants, RP-D resulted in greater comprehension
234
 accuracy compared to RP-C. Visual analysis of Figure 1
reveals that an assistive technology accommodation
condition resulted in greater comprehension accuracy
in 6 of 9 sessions for Joseph (4 RP-D, 2 RP-DV), 7 of
9 sessions for Tim (4 RP-D, 3 RP-DV) and all 9 sessions
for Liz (4 RP-D, 5 RP-DV).
Effect size data reported in Table 2 reflect effect sizes
ranging from negligible (.10 for Joseph and .11 for Tim)
to essentially large (.79 for Liz). Effect sizes are inter-
preted consistent with the guidelines of Cohen (1992).
There were no appreciable differences in performance
between the control and RP-DV conditions across par-
ticipants, for Joseph and Tim. In contrast, an effect size
of 1.15 indicates that Liz’s comprehension accuracy
was meaningfully higher in the RP-DV condition com-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014

pared to the control condition. The RP-D condition

resulted in greater comprehension accuracy compared
to the RP-DV condition for Joseph and Tim (effect
sizes of .01 and .09, respectively). No difference was
present for Liz.

Data Analysis of
Comprehension Rate
As stated earlier, comprehension rate is an index
of the number of correctly answered comprehension
questions given time spent engaged with the pas-
sage. Figure 2 displays students’ comprehension rate
as a function of condition and Table 1 includes the
means and standard deviations for comprehension
rate. For Tim and Joseph, the greatest comprehension
rate resulted from the control condition, followed by
the RP-D condition, and then the RP-DV condition.
FIGURE 1 Comprehension accuracy across participants, con- For Liz, comprehension rate was equally high in the
ditions, and sessions.
control and RP-D conditions, followed by the RP-
DV condition. Comprehension rate was lowest in the
RP-DV condition for all three participants.

TABLE 1 Mean and standard deviation of correctly answered comprehension questions across participants
and conditions

Mean number correct (SD) Mean comprehension rate (SD)

C RP-D RP-DV C RP-D RP-DV

Joseph 5.22 (2.17) 5.44 (2.35) 5.11 (1.90) 1.07 (0.53) 0.93 (0.36) 0.82 (0.39)
Tim 6.78 (1.79) 7.00 (2.34) 6.78 (2.44) 1.61 (0.56) 1.13 (0.47) 0.92 (0.44)
Liz 4.89 (1.45) 6.44 (2.46) 6.44 (1.24) 0.46 (0.14) 0.46 (0.20) 0.40 (0.09)

Note. C = Control condition. RP-D = Decoding accommodation condition. RP-DV = Decoding and vocabulary
accommodations condition. Maximum mean number correct per condition is 10.

235 Reading Pen Assistive Technology

 TABLE 2 Comprehension accuracy and rate effect size across participants and between conditions

Effect size
Dependent
variable C vs. RP-D C vs. RP-DV RP-D vs. RP-DV

Joseph Accuracy ES = 0.10 D > C ES = 0.05 C > DV ES = 0.15 D > DV

Rate ES = 0.31 C > D ES = 0.54 C > DV ES = 0.29 D > DV
Tim Accuracy ES = 0.11 D > C ES = 0 C = DV ES = 0.09 D > DV
Rate ES = 0.92 C > D ES = 1.38 C > DV ES = 0.46 DV > D
Liz Accuracy ES = 0.79 D > C ES = 1.15 DV > C ES = 0 D = DV
Rate ES = 0 C = D ES = 0.50 C > DV ES = 0.40 D > DV

Note. C = Control condition. RP-D = Decoding accommodation condition. RP-DV = Decoding and vocabulary
accommodations condition.

Effect size data reported in Table 2 support the

visual analysis. For Joseph and Tim, and in favor of
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014

the control condition, effect sizes comparing the con-

trol condition to RP-D were small for Joseph (.31) and
large for Tim (.92). No difference in comprehension
rate was indicated for Liz. With respect to the control
condition compared to the RP-D condition, compre-
hension rate was higher in the control condition for
Joseph, Tim, and Liz with effect sizes of .54 (moder-
ate), 1.38 (large), and .50 (moderate), respectively. For
Joseph and Liz, the RP-D condition resulted in greater
comprehension rate than the RP-DV condition with
effect sizes of .29 (small) and .40 (moderate). The RP-
DV produced higher comprehension rate compared to
RP-D with a small effect size of .46.

Accommodation Acceptability
All participants were administered a brief treatment
acceptability rating form. Two of the participants,
Joseph and Tim, found the Readingpen accommoda-
tions enjoyable while Liz indicated that she some-
what enjoyed using the Readingpen technology. All
three students reported the Readingpen was helpful in
decoding unknown words and looking up definitions
of unknown words. Two of the participants reported
that they would use the Readingpen technology again;
however, Liz indicated that she would possibly use this
technology again. Unexpected was that Liz, for whom
the Readingpen provided the most benefit, rated the
technology somewhat lower that the other two partic-
ipants. Plausible is that Liz’s cognitive resources were
FIGURE 2 Comprehension rate across participants, condi- so devoted to the task of word decoding that the ben-
tions, and sessions. efit to her comprehension was not fully recognized.
On the other hand, Joseph and Tim indicated they

A. J. Schmitt et al. 236

 would use the Readingpen again, but unknown to
them, it did not provide as much a benefit compared
to Liz. This finding is consistent with previous stud-
ies involving text-to-speech assistive technology (e.g.,
Schmitt et al., 2011). For some individuals it appears
that attention is drawn more to the technological capa-
bilities of the Readingpen than whether or not any
changes in reading comprehension occurred.
DISCUSSION
Prior to this study, only one known inquiry inves-
tigated the effectiveness of reading pen text-to-speech
assistive technology on the comprehension of stu-
dents. In their sample of high school students with
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
reading disabilities, reading pen accommodations were
found to increase student performance on a standard-
ized measure of reading comprehension (Higgins &
Raskind, 2005). The present study sought to exam-
ine the effects of reading pen accommodations on
the comprehension of college students when provided
college level difficulty reading passages. This investi-
gation also sought to contribute to the literature by
examining the effects of reading pen accommodations
on college student comprehension rates, or compre-
hension accuracy given time spent engaged with the
passage. Reading pen assistive technology has been
suggested to be a tool useful for college students to
increase their access to content in courses; however,
results of the current study indicate that the effective-
ness of the technology may depend on the individual
student.
For two of the students, access to and use of reading
pen accommodations did not meaningfully improve
their comprehension of college-level passages. On the
surface it would seem that additional decoding and
vocabulary assistance would improve the comprehen-
sion of the two college students. These results are
similar to Schmitt et al. (2011) who found reading
pen accommodations did not improve the comprehen-
sion of high school students with reading disabilities.
In fact, the researchers found that the use of the tech-
nological accommodations hindered comprehension.
Studies have consistently demonstrated that reading
fluency is essential for comprehension (e.g., Deno,
Marston, Shinn, & Tindal, 1983; Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Maxwell, 1988; Meisenger, Bloom, & Hynd, 2010;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski, 1990). For
237
some students, the act of disengaging from the passage
and then manipulating the reading pen appears to dis-
rupt fluency to the extent that any benefit provided
by the accommodation is lost. One way to quan-
tify this phenomenon is by examining comprehension
rates.
Joseph’s and Tim’s learning rates were negatively
impacted by use of the reading pen accommoda-
tions. That is, not only did their comprehension not
appreciably improve (or improve at all), the students
spent more time working through the passages by the
nature of the necessity to operate the reading pens.
To illustrate, Tim’s comprehension rate was signifi-
cantly greater in the control condition than the RP-DV
condition with an effect size of 1.38. This issue is
particularly poignant for college students whose time
is often limited given class, extracurricular, and work
schedules. For these two students, use of a reading pen
may not make sense as any benefit was minimal and it
took up more of their time to use the technology.
On the other hand, Liz did appear to benefit from
using the reading pens. Her comprehension accuracy
improved when using the reading pen accommoda-
tions as reflected by generally large effect sizes (e.g.,
.79 for RP-D and 1.15 for RP-DV compared to the con-
trol condition). Although continuous text-to-speech
assistive technology was used to read entire passages,
this result is consistent with previous research that
found those with the greatest reading disabilities bene-
fitted the most from the technological accommodation
(Elkind et al., 1996; Higgins & Raskind, 1997). Each
of the participants’ oral reading fluency was measured
prior to the start of the experiment. Of note, Liz’s oral
reading fluency was markedly lower than Joseph’s and
Tim’s (81, 131, and 144, respectively). It is hypoth-
esized that Liz’s reading was already so labored that
the disruption to fluency caused by use of the read-
ing pen was of no consequence. As Table 2 reveals,
Liz’s comprehension rates did decrease with increased
access to the technology’s functions, and particularly
when access to the decoding and vocabulary functions
were enabled. Again, this indicates that despite gains
in comprehension accuracy, it took her much longer
to progress through the passages using the technol-
ogy. For a college student like Liz, one must consider
the benefit of the increased comprehension in light
of the time it takes to complete passages using a
reading pen.
Reading Pen Assistive Technology
 Practice Implications
The practical implications of this investigation par-
allel previous studies in the text-to-speech assistive
technology literature. First, individual college students
with reading disabilities should not assume that read-
ing pens will necessarily improve their comprehension
of text. Although variability in response was present
among the participants, consistent was that the tech-
nology did not normalize their reading comprehen-
sion. Therefore, the technology did not appear to
facilitate absolute access to curricular content across
sessions. Other interventions like repeated reading; sur-
vey, questions, read, recite, and restate (SQ3R); and
peer tutoring should also be attempted (see Daly,
Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005 for reviews of these inter-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
ventions). Still, of the three participants, one student’s
comprehension did appear to improve compared to
the control condition. That student demonstrated the
poorest oral reading fluency of the three participants.
This is consistent with previous text-to-speech litera-
ture which suggests that those with the greatest reading
disability may benefit the most from text-to-speech
assistive technology. Another practical implication of
this study is that use of reading pens takes additional
time compared to silent reading, and no benefit may
be evident. Like school-aged students (McGivern &
McKevitt, 2002), college students are strongly encour-
aged to use the assistive technology on a trial basis to
determine if it improves their comprehension and if
the time it takes to read with the reading pen remains
reasonable.
Limitations and Future Research
Although very appropriate for the implemented
experimental design, this study included only three
participants and in depth analyses across participants
was not possible. Future studies should strive to
include a greater number of participants in order to
tease apart for whom reading pens may meaningfully
improve comprehension of text. Like Elkind et al.
(1996) and Higgins and Raskind (1997), a larger sample
would permit the analysis of treatment gains in light of
reading disability severity. A strength of the research
design was that the readability of the passages were
tightly controlled and the participants were exposed to
numerous unfamiliar passages. This required the use
of a literature series commonly used in intervention
studies. Future studies should consider studying the
A. J. Schmitt et al.
effects of reading pens on the comprehension of actual
college textbooks since reading for memorization, such
as for a test, may influence how a student engages a pas-
sage (Linderholm, 2006). Much research is still needed
on use of reading pen text-to-speech assistive tech-
nology across populations. Continued research should
focus using reading pen accommodations in other
educational contexts, such as understanding instructor-
provided notes, test preparation, and reading scholarly
manuscripts.
REFERENCES
AIMSweb. (2008). AIMSweb growth table: Reading curriculum based
measurement multi-year aggregate. Retrieved from http://aimsweb.
com/
Assistive Technology Act (1998). Pub L. No. 105–394.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Daly, E., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C. H. (2005). Interventions for reading
problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Deno, S. L., Marston, D., Shinn, M. R., & Tindal, G. (1983). Oral read-
ing fluency: A simple datum for scaling reading disability. Topics in
Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 53−59.
Elkind, J., Black, M. S., & Murray, C. (1996). Computer-based compensa-
tion of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 159–186.
Elkind, J., Cohen, K., & Murray, C. (1993). Using computer-based readers
to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals
of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading,
11, 513–516.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal
reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education,
9, 20−28.
Gillon, G. T. (2007). Phonological Awareness: From Research to Practice.
Challenges in Language and Literacy. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Hale, A. D., Skinner, C. H., Winn, B. D., Oliver, R., Allin, J. D., &
Molloy, C.C.M (2005). An investigation of listening and listening-
while-reading accommodations on reading comprehension levels and
rates in students with emotional disorders. Psychology in the Schools,
42, 39–51.
Harbour, W. S. (2004). Final report: The 2004 AHEAD survey of higher
education disability services providers. Waltham, MA: The Association
on Higher Education and Disability.
Henderson, C. (2001). College freshmen with disabilities, 2001: A
Biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education
Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (1997). The compensatory effective-
ness of optical character recognition/speech synthesis on the reading
comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 75–87.
Higgins, E. L., & Raskind, M. H. (2005). The compensatory effectiveness
of the Quicktionary Reading Pen II on the reading comprehension
of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 20, 31–40.
Hudson, R. F., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the
brain: What does current research tell us? Reading Teacher, 60,
506–515.
Izzo, M., Yurick, A., & McArrell, B. (2009). Supported eText: Effects
of text-to-speech on access and achievement for high school stu-
dents with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24,
9–20.
238
 Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Developing
a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in
mathematics testing. Exceptional Children, 73, 331–347.
Lee, H., & Templeton, R. (2008). Ensuring equal access to technology:
Providing assistive technology for students with disabilities. Theory
Into Practice, 47, 212–219.
Linderholm, T. (2006). Reading with purpose. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 36, 70–80.
Madaus, J. W. (2006). Employment outcomes of university gradu-
ates with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29,
19–31.
Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2004). Section 504: Differences in the reg-
ulations for secondary and postsecondary education. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 40, 81–87.
McCallum, E., & Schmitt, A. J. (2011). Using technology in schools to
enhance student performance. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices
For Schools, 12, 129–130.
McGivern, J. E., & McKevitt, B. C. (2002). Best practices in working with
students using assistive technology. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.),
Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1537–1553). Bethesda,
MD: National Association of School
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 12:00 07 December 2014
Meisinger, E. B., Bloom, J. S., & Hynd, G. W. (2010). Reading fluency:
Implications for the assessment of children with reading disabilities.
Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 1–17.
Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talk-
ing computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 29, 271–279.
Moorman, A., Boon, R. T., Keller-Bell, Y., Stagliano, C., & Jeffs, T.
(2010). Effects of text-to-speech software on the reading rate and
comprehension skills of high school students with specific learn-
ing disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16,
41–49.
Morris, R. D., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., . . . Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G.,
Shankweiler, D. P., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading dis-
ability: Variability around a phonological core. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 347–373.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development.
Poncy, B. C., Skinner, C. H., & Jaspers, K. E. (2007). Evaluating and com-
paring interventions designed to enhance math fact accuracy and
fluency: Cover, copy, and compare versus taped problems. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 16, 27–37.
Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Investigating measures of reading fluency.
Educational Research Quarterly, 14, 37−44.
Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1998). Assistive technology for post-
secondary students with learning disabilities: An Overview. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31, 27–40.
239
Readingpen® Advanced Edition [Apparatus]. (2006). Westford, MA:
Wizcom Technologies.
Reed, P. R. (2007). A Resource guide for teachers and administra-
tors about assistive technology. Oshkosh, WI: Wisconsin Assistive
Technology Initiative.
Rose, T. L. (1984). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral
reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 544–548.
Rose, T. L., & Beattie, J. R. (1986). Relative effects of teacher-directed
and taped previewing on oral reading. Learning Disability Quarterly,
9, 193–199.
Schmitt, A. J., Hale, A. D., McCallum, E., & Mauck, B. (2011).
Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting:
Is listening-while-reading sufficient to improve factual and inferential
comprehension? Psychology in the Schools, 48, 37–45.
Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., Hale, A. D., Obeldobel, E., & Dingus, K.
(2009). Can text-to-speech assistive technology improve the read-
ing comprehension of students with severe reading and emotional
disabilities? Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 10,
95–115.
Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., Rubinic, D., & Hawkins, R. (2011). Reading
pen decoding and vocabulary accommodations: Impact on student
comprehension accuracy and rate. Journal of Evidence Based Practices
for Schools, 12, 129–130.
Shaw, S. F., Madaus, J. W., & Banerjee, M. (2009). Enhance access to
postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 44, 185–190.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-
based program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alter-
nating treatments design for instructional research. Education and
Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
Skinner, C. H. (2008). Theoretical and applied implications of precisely
measuring learning rates. School Psychology Review, 37, 309–314.
Skinner, C. H., & Shapiro, E. S. (1989). A comparison of taped-words
and drill interventions on reading fluency in adolescents with behavior
disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 123–133.
Spargo, E. (1989). Timed readings in literature. Providence, RI:
Jamestown.
Weiner, R. K., Sheridan, S. M., & Jenson, W. R. (1998). The effects of
conjoint behavioral consultation and a structured homework program
on math completion and accuracy in junior high students. School
Psychology Quarterly, 13, 281–309.
Wepner, S. B., & Bowes, K. A. (2004). Using assistive technology for liter-
acy development. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 20, 219–223.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the
developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
415–438.
Reading Pen Assistive Technology