Study: 10450

Project Read Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2010

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Project Read Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations

This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Project Read.

Findings

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest	Project Read vs. literature-based instruction	Posttest	Grades 4 and 5; 14 students	3.57	1.57	No	--
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest	Project Read vs. Literature-based instruction	Posttest	Grades 4 and 5; 14 students	3.71	1.43	No	--

Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Passage Comprehension subtest	Project Read vs. Literature-based instruction	Posttest	Grades 4 and 5; 14 students	0.71	0.42	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

100% English language learners
Female: 43%
Male: 57%
Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted with students with learning disabilities from one elementary school in southern California. Students were enrolled in grades 4 and 5. The two study groups were instructed in the same classroom, at the same time, with the two groups sitting at opposite sides of the classroom, which was divided by a portable wall.

Study sample

The sample for this study included a total of 14 students with learning disabilities in grades 4 and 5. All students in the study were identified as learning disabled based on definitions from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the California Code of Regulations and had been placed in a special day class by school district staff. Two groups of students were formed by matching pairs on gender, grade level, and pretest reading achievement scores. The two groups were then assigned randomly to intervention (Project Read ® Phonology) or control (literature-based) conditions. Prior to the study, all of the participating students received one month of instruction in Project Read ® Phonology and at least one year of literature-based instruction. Pretest and posttest data were collected at the start and end of the six-week intervention period by the study author. All students were from low socioeconomic households and were limited English proficient; six were female and eight were male; six were 4th graders and eight were 5th graders.

Intervention Group

Students with learning disabilities who were assigned to Project Read ® Phonology received instruction using the Project Read ® Phonology Guide. Project Read ® Phonology instruction was delivered 20 minutes a day, four days a week, for six weeks. Project Read ® Phonology students participated in regular basal reading programs for the remaining 1.5 hours of daily reading instruction.

Comparison Group

Students with learning disabilities in the comparison group participated in “literature-based instruction” for 20 minutes a day, four days a week, for six weeks. Comparison students also participated in regular basal reading programs for the remaining 1.5 hours of daily reading instruction.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome domains assessed were alphabetics and reading comprehension. Alphabetics (letter knowledge) was measured by administration of the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised (WJ–R) and the Reading subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised (WRAT–R). Reading comprehension was measured by administration of the Passage Comprehension subtest of the WJ–R. The assessments were individually administered in English. Pretesting and posttesting were done prior to and immediately following the six-week intervention period. For each of these outcomes, the author reported gain scores (posttest mean–pretest mean) for the Project Read ® Phonology and comparison groups. Posttest standard deviations were not reported, so it was not possible for the WWC to confirm the author’s findings, nor could the WWC calculate an effect size or an improvement index. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.

Support for implementation

The study author was the lead teacher and received 12 hours of training in the phonology component of Project Read ®, plus another 18 hours of training in the reading comprehension and written expression components of Project Read ®. An instructional assistant was trained in the use of Project Read ® Phonology by the lead teacher for six hours. The lead teacher and instructional assistant also participated in 40 hours of workshop training in literature-based and whole language instruction. The lead teacher and instructional assistant alternated weekly between the Project Read ® Phonology group and the literature-based comparison group. The lead teacher was a credentialed special education teacher. Both instructors had 10 years of experience working with students with learning disabilities.

The effectiveness of Project Read on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities.