Based on behavioral screening procedures, 100 students were at behavioral risk. For the 100 students at behavioral risk, 60 also showed academic risk. (2003, p. 216). Other sub-findings were detailed in the charts of mean scores and standard deviations for Letter Naming and Nonsense Word Fluency Subtests by Student Risk Group. Reading curriculum was the differential influence in students' growth in this study by Kamp, et al. (2003). Accelerating growth patterns for the three fluency measures, with some slowing in letters and oral reading, showed that curriculum type led to significant differences in performance at the end of first grade. One of the curriculum choices (Reading Mastery, Success for All) was found to positively affect students skills in each area more than literature-based curricula. By Grade 3 endpoint, performance showed significant differences in the group with no risk, compared to the behavior risk group, the academic risk group and the students at risk for both. Their charts show that "students with behavior risks, academic risks, or both, made the least progress in oral reading fluency over time. At the end of the study, mean fluencies were 109.98 (no risk), 95.05 (behavior risk), 81.13 (academic risk), and 67.21 (both)." The conclusion was that both risk and curriculum affect results, both assisting student growth and attainment of end-of-grade benchmark levels, over time. The no-risk students made comparatively more progress, but students using the Reading Mastery curriculum made more progress than did students using an alternative curriculum, Success for All or literature-based curricula. Students with academic and academic-behavioral risks initially showed slow growth in first grade, but increased...

High-risk students (with both and academic risks) fell below all end-of-grade benchmarks and had not caught up with lower risk peers, although the curriculum using Reading Mastery helped some outperform lower risk students using a literature-based curricula.
The limitations of this research were outlined in the beginning, as it involved only 383 students in five schools. So the students in this limited study fell into categories that were monitored by a number of teachers, who used differing curricula. The data compiled, however, was based on a regulated series of tests that determined where each student was at any point in the three-year study and, as the focus was on reaching specific goals, these findings indicated where and what differences affected each group of students at different times. This is only one case and cannot be applied to every situation, as other studies have shown.

I can utilize the results of this research study by Kamp, et al. By determining a successful reading curriculum and by applying testing at different levels to determine the students who are behavioral risks, emotional risks, and/or have limited reading abilities. The fact that a pupil has difficulty with reading may indicate a problem in any of these areas.