Rehmann, R. (2005). Dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 157–2533.
Reviewed: January 2009
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 Earobics®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
17.30 |
15.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
37.20 |
34.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
26.70 |
26.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
38.60 |
48.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 8% | |
| Native American | 17% | |
| Other or unknown | 22% | |
| White | 36% |
One Title 1 elementary school in Anchorage, Alaska, participated in the study. The intervention was administered in the computer lab or in the student’s regular classroom.
At a school with 140 kindergarten and first-grade students (70 at each grade level), the researcher blocked the students by gender and grade, and then randomly selected a sample of 80 students (40 in group 1, 40 in group 2). Among this sample, 14 were discontinued during the study (10 in group 1 and four in group 2), leaving a final analysis sample of 66 students. Students in the study participated in two 10-week intervention phases. During the first phase, group 1 received the intervention and group 2 served as the comparison. In the second phase, group 2 received the intervention and group 1 was the comparison. (The WWC focuses on phase 1 only, because by phase 2, the comparison group had just received the intervention.)
The intervention group received computerized instruction in phonological awareness with Earobics® Step 1 software 20 minutes a day, three days a week, for a total of 10 weeks. Earobics® Step 1 uses a game format designed to assist students in developing specific phonological awareness and auditory-processing skills. The software consists of six multileveled interactive games with adaptive technology. This was in addition to whole-group direct instruction that the students received together with comparison students.
While intervention students were engaged with the intervention software, comparison students received an additional 20 minutes of peer or individual classroom activities in a variety of formats dependent on the individual teacher’s program.
Students were tested before and after the intervention using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) 6th edition and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Training was provided in two phases: implementation and data collection. Seven classroom teachers and one Title 1 paraprofessional received training, which was provided by specialists from the developer. Other staff members were trained and available to provide technical support, and additional support was available online and by telephone.
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