Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., Short, R., & Shearer, B. (1991). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs.
Reviewed: November 2008
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 Early Intervention in Reading (EIR)®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vowel sounds |
Early Intervention in Reading (EIR)® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
10.62 |
6.44 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Segmentation and blending |
Early Intervention in Reading (EIR)® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
14.30 |
10.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading subtest |
Early Intervention in Reading (EIR)® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
20.76 |
17.14 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in one suburban district in a metropolitan area in the Midwest.
Twelve first grade teachers from two schools were randomly assigned either to the intervention or to a control group (six teachers were assigned to EIR® and six teachers were assigned to the comparison group). In each classroom, five or six of the lowest-scoring students participated in the study. Students were identified initially by teacher recommendations based on reading test scores and confirmed through testing by study assistants using knowledge of consonant sounds; reading of sight words on the Dolch preprimer list; and the Burns-Roe Informal Reading Inventory, an auditory phonemic segmentation and blending test. Thirty-one low-achieving students from six EIR® classes and 28 students from six comparison classes participated in the study (there were five or six students in each class, but only three low-achieving students in one of the comparison classrooms). The district reports 20% of students receive free or reduced price lunch and 10% are minority students, but no specific demographic information was given about the study participants. Twenty-nine of the original 31 students in the treatment group remained throughout the study. All of the 28 comparison group students remained in the study.
The program involved pulling aside the lowest-achieving students in each class to work as a group with the teacher. The program was implemented in three-day cycles from October to April of the school year. On day one, the teacher read a picture book (this part of the intervention occurred with the entire class). The teacher then taught the intervention students to segment words and blend phonemes into words. On days two and three, the intervention students read a story summary with minimal assistance. They also wrote one sentence a day that was related to the story with the teacher’s help. In addition to the 15–20 minutes that students worked with teachers each day, children worked individually (for 5 minutes) or in pairs (for 10 minutes) with a trained aide or project assistant. Running records were taken by the teacher or aide weekly to assess students’ progress. In this study, the project assistants, who were graduate students from a local university, spent time listening to intervention students read individually and provided teachers with feedback on the program.
Students in the comparison classes participated in their regular reading instruction, supplemented with additional instruction from teachers and reading specialists. Some students received 30-minute pull-out sessions, whereas others were aided by special reading teachers within their own classes.
For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered a vowel sounds test, a test of segmentation and blending, and the Gates-MacGinitie reading test. Two additional tests, the Burns-Roe Informal Reading Inventory and the percentage of children reading a 150-word selection at the first grade level, were used in the study but have not been included in this review. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–2.2.
Intervention teachers attended an all-day workshop the summer before implementation. Three afternoon meetings were also held to support implementation. Project assistants (graduate students) observed and assisted (listening to program students read aloud) in intervention classes. These assistants were in program classes about 90 minutes per week. Assistants gave feedback and suggestions for improvement to program teachers.
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.
Taylor, B. M. (2001). The Early Intervention in Reading Program (EIR®): Research and development spanning twelve years (Tech. Rep.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Taylor, B. M., Short, R., Frye, B., & Shearer, B. (1992). Classroom teachers prevent reading failure among low achieving first-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 592-597.
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