Vadasy, Patricia F.; Jenkins, Joseph R.; Antil, Lawrence R.; Wayne, Susan K.; O'Connor, Rollanda E. (1997). Learning Disability Quarterly, v20 n2 p126-39. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ556899
Reviewed: February 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation |
One-on-one tutoring vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
16.75 |
14.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest |
One-on-one tutoring vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
46.08 |
43.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Spelling subtest |
One-on-one tutoring vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
29.32 |
28.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
One-on-one tutoring vs. Business as usual |
7 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.58 |
7.42 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 95% | |
| White | 5% |
The study took place in four elementary schools located in one large urban school district in the United States. The four schools were all located in a central city, and were located within a few miles of each other.
Forty-five percent of students enrolled in one of the four schools involved in this study were eligible for free or reduced lunch. This data is not reported separately for the study sample, although the authors expect it exceeds 45%. The average age of students in the intervention condition was 79.2 months (6.6 years), and the average age of students in the comparison condition was 77.8 months (6.5 years). 95% of students in the study sample identified as belonging to a minority race.
The intervention is a one-on-one reading tutoring program targeted to low-achieving first graders. Tutoring was delivered by nonprofessional volunteers. The tutoring protocol consisted of 100 30-minute lessons covering varying topics, including: 1) letter sounds and beginning sound instruction, 2) rhyming, 3) auditory blending, 4) segmenting, 5) story reading, and 6) writing. Tutoring ran from November to May, with a maximum of 53 contact hours. Lessons included between six and eight student activities each. As the tutoring was delivered by nonprofessional volunteers, the lessons were designed to be easily implemented.
The comparison condition received standard reading services in their school, but were not offered the supplemental one-on-one tutoring intervention.
No standard implementation supports are available, but the study authors do describe procedures they used to monitor implementation fidelity in their own study. Tutors were asked to keep logs on lesson progression, but these were not completed consistently. Instead, tutors were observed once per week and provided feedback and advice on implementation fidelity. Feedback to tutors can focus on help modeling correct vowel sounds, correct blending and segmenting procedures, providing suggestions for changes in individualized lesson plans, assistance with behavior management strategies, and assistance with student writing exercises.
Reviewed: September 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 Sound Partners.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bryant Pseudoword Test |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
19.47 |
13.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
16.75 |
14.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
46.08 |
43.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Pseudoword list |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
12.75 |
9.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Word Attack subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
8.58 |
7.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dolch Word Recognition |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
131.93 |
123.57 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytical Reading Inventory |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
1 year posttest |
Grade 1;
|
33.16 |
29.55 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 95% |
The study includes first-grade children from four schools in a large urban school district in Washington state. Forty-five percent of students in the four schools were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Students from 13 classrooms were in the final analytic sample of 40 students.
After prescreening and pretesting 229 first-graders, the 46 students scoring lowest on the pretests were stratified and randomly assigned to intervention and control groups, with 23 students in each group. At study completion, 20 students remained in each group, for a total of 40 students. Ninety-five percent of the study students were of minority background.
A set of 100, thirty-minute Sound Partners lessons, each including six to eight activities, was administered to students in the intervention group. Some activities were phased out once students mastered the target skills. Other activities were initiated only after most letter sounds had been introduced, and they continued throughout the lessons. Students received reading tutoring after school for 30 minutes per day, four days per week, for 23 weeks. Tutors were provided with lessons to guide the sessions, which focused for specific amounts of time on instruction in letter names and sounds, sound categorization, rhyming exercises, onset-rime segmentation, auditory blending, spelling, writing, and reading from Bob Books®.
The control group students received only the regular reading instruction in their classrooms.
For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered a test of alphabetics, the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised Reading subtest. Alphabetics achievement was further assessed using the Dolch Word Recognition test, the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised Word Attack subtest, the Bryant Pseudoword Test, an additional pseudoword list, and the Yopp-Singer Segmentation Task. The authors assessed reading fluency using the primary and first-grade passages of the Analytical Reading Inventory. The authors also used spelling and writing assessments, but they were not included in this review because they are outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review protocol. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Tutors (nonprofessional educators who were community members) were trained as a group two weeks before they began tutoring. Six hours of training were provided at that time and included an introduction to the goals and methods of the tutoring lessons, a presentation and practice role-playing on each lesson component, general information on tutoring, suggestions for behavior management and safety, and record-keeping tasks. Three hours of follow-up training were provided after the tutoring began.
Reviewed: February 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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 95% |
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
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades Practice Guide