Nunnery, J. A., & Ross, S. M. (2007). Research in the Schools, 14(1), 40–59.
Reviewed: July 2017
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 Accelerated Math® .
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Nunnery, John A.; Ross, Steven M.; Goldfeder, Elizabeth. (2003). The Effect of School Renaissance on TAAS Scores in the McKinney ISD. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2007). Use of Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math Shown to Increase Student Scores in Texas (Scientific Research: Quasi-experimental series). Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Reviewed: May 2017
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 Accelerated Math® .
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2007). Use of Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math Shown to Increase Student Scores in Texas (Scientific Research: Quasi-experimental series). Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.
Nunnery, John A.; Ross, Steven M.; Goldfeder, Elizabeth. (2003). The Effect of School Renaissance on TAAS Scores in the McKinney ISD. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
Reviewed: June 2016
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 Accelerated Reader.
Reviewed: August 2010
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 Accelerated Reader.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAC): Reading subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
End of year 2 |
Grade 8: Cohort 2;
|
90.67 |
88.56 |
No |
-- | |
|
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAC): Reading subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
End of year 2 |
Grade 5: Cohort 2;
|
91.53 |
90.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAC): Reading subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
End of year 2 |
Grade 5: Cohort 1;
|
88.44 |
89.45 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 8% | |
| Native American | 0% | |
| White | 71% |
| Hispanic | 17% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 83% |
The study took place in 18 elementary and 4 middle/junior high schools from nine districts in Texas. All 11 intervention schools were located in a suburban school district.
The intervention group consisted of 11 schools that implemented Accelerated Reader™. Two steps were used to identify comparison schools. The first step was taken to narrow the pool of potential comparison schools. In this step, the researchers used data from the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS), which identifies—for each school in Texas (including the 11 treatment schools in this study)—40 demographically similar schools based on the percentage of African-American students, Hispanic students, white students, economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficient students, and student mobility. In the second step, from the group of 40 potential comparison schools identified for each treatment school, the most similar school not using Accelerated Reader™ was selected according to the schools’ base-year accountability rating (low performing, acceptable, recognized, exemplary) and base-year percentage of economically disadvantaged students. One of the selected comparison schools declined to participate, and another two did not have appropriate grade-level scores for use in the study. These three comparison schools were replaced from the pool of similar schools. The analytic sample consisted of students in grades 5 and 8 who had three consecutive years of data between school years 1998/99 and 2001/02 (cohort 1 students had data from the 1998/99 through 2000/01 school years, and cohort 2 students had data from the 1999/2000 through 2001/02 school years). The cohort 1 grade 5 analysis sample included 442 intervention students from nine schools who received Accelerated Reader™ in the 1999/2000 and 2000/01 school years and 470 nonparticipants from nine matched elementary schools. The cohort 2 grade 5 analysis sample consisted of 437 students from nine schools who received Accelerated Reader™ in the 1999/2000, 2000/01, and 2001/02 school years and 454 nonparticipants from nine matched elementary schools. The cohort 2 grade 8 analysis sample consisted of 482 students in two schools who received Accelerated Reader™ in the 1999/2000, 2000/01, and 2001/02 school years and 510 nonparticipants from two matched middle/junior high schools. Outcomes were measured at the end of the second year of intervention implementation for cohort 1 and at the end of the third year of intervention implementation for cohort 2.
According to study authors, Accelerated Reader™ was the primary reading curriculum in intervention schools. The study did not provide details on how the intervention was implemented.
The comparison schools did not implement Accelerated Reader™ during the school years under study. No information is available on the reading curricula used in these schools.
For both pre- and posttests, the authors used the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), Reading subtest. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.2.
No information on staff or teacher training was provided in the study.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Nunnery, John A.; Ross, Steven M.; Goldfeder, Elizabeth. (2003). The Effect of School Renaissance on TAAS Scores in the McKinney ISD. Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube