Macaruso, Paul; Walker, Adelaide (2008). Reading Psychology, v29 n3 p266-287. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ799232
Reviewed: June 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 Lexia Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Oral-Language Concepts subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
14.80 |
12.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Literacy Concepts subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
16.80 |
15.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Letters and Letter-Sound Correspondences subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
24.70 |
23.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
38.30 |
38.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
28.00 |
30.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Listening Comprehension subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. business as usual |
6 months |
Kindergarten;
|
13.60 |
12.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The participating schools were two urban elementary schools near Boston, Massachusetts. Twenty-nine percent of families in the school system spoke a language other than English at home, and the median household income in the school district was $37,000 (compared to a state median of $50,000). More than half of the students in the district qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Six kindergarten classes from two elementary schools participated in the study. The six classes included morning and afternoon classes for each of three teachers. The authors randomly assigned the six classes to treatment (Lexia Early Reading) or comparison (extra time spent in language-related classroom activities), blocked by teacher. These six classes included a total of 94 students. After randomly assigning classrooms, the authors dropped from the analysis 11 students (9 intervention, 2 comparison) who were designated as English Language Learners or special education. At the end of the study, the authors excluded another 12 students from the treatment group who had not completed their minimum criterion of more than 45 sessions with Lexia Early Reading. The final analysis sample consisted of 26 students in the Lexia Early Reading group and 45 students in the comparison group. The authors demonstrated that there were no statistically significant pre-intervention differences between the two analysis groups on the baseline measures (DIBELS: Initial Sounds Fluency and DIBELS: Letter Naming Fluency).
Classes in the intervention condition began using Lexia Early Reading in November and continued for approximately six months. Students used the software in two to three weekly sessions of 15 to 20 minutes each. On average, students in the analysis sample completed 52 sessions with the software. Lexia Early Reading contains nine activities involving sound identification, rhyming, segmenting and blending of sounds, and application of letter-sound correspondences for subsets of consonants and vowels. Each activity consists of several units; students progress to the next activity only after mastering skills in the prior activity.
Students in the comparison condition spent extra time engaged in language-related classroom activities.
At the end of the study period, the students were tested using the DIBELS subtests for Letter Naming Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, as well as both subtest and overall composite scores for the Gates-MacGintie Reading Test, Level PR. Because the composite score for the Gates-MacGintie measure spans the alphabetics and comprehension domains, the subtests results for alphabetics and comprehension are presented as the main findings in Appendices A3.1 and A3.3 and the composite score results are presented as supplemental findings in Appendix A4.3. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.3.
Kindergarten teachers and computer lab staff participated in an orientation and training session for Lexia Early Reading software implementation.
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