Therrien, William J.; Wickstrom, Katherine; Jones, Kevin (2006). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v21 n2 p89-97. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ736475
Reviewed: November 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Broad Reading Score: Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement |
Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.60 |
86.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency Rate: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) |
Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
81.40 |
80.21 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in a rural school district in Ohio.
Students were in grades 4, 5, 7, or 8 at the time of the study. About half of the sample (53.3%) had a reading disability, and just under half of the sample (46.7%) were identified as having reading failure because they were reading at least two grade levels below their grade level. Just over half (53.5%) of the sample were males. The authors did not provide further details on the characteristics of the students in the sample.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students received the Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend (RAAC) supplemental intervention. The intervention was delivered individually in a pullout setting by trained undergraduate students majoring in special education. Students read a total of 50 passages over a 4-month period. Each session lasted 10-15 minutes. RAAC consisted of 5 steps: (1) the teacher (namely, the undergraduate student serving as the interventionist) asked a student to read a story; (2) the teacher presented a student with a cue card containing a generic story structure with questions and asked students to read questions aloud; and (3) the student reread the passage aloud until they reached a specified reading fluency (as measured by the number of correct words per minute). Regardless of reading fluency, a student read each passage 2-4 times with the teacher providing feedback on word errors. If students hesitated for three seconds or missed a word, the teacher provided correction immediately. Otherwise, errors were corrected after the passage was read but before it was reread. After the last passage, the teacher prompted a student to orally answer cue card questions, helping as needed. Finally, the teacher asked factual and inferential comprehension questions about the passage. The session ended and the steps were repeated at the next session with the teacher adjusting the reading materials for the subsequent session based on the student’s performance at the current session.
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction.
The undergraduate students that implemented the intervention participated in two three-hour training sessions and practiced delivering the intervention sessions until they demonstrated 100% accuracy on an integrity checklist. The interventionists were monitored during implementation with students, and if they demonstrated less than 90% accuracy on the implementation checklist, they received additional training.
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