Troia, Gary A. (2004). Remedial and Special Education, v25 n6 p353-366. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ695636
Reviewed: March 2013
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 Fast ForWord®.
Reviewed: August 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 Fast ForWord®.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Fast ForWord®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Pscyho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1–6;
|
92.47 |
90.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Word Attack subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1–6;
|
94.64 |
94.46 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 100% |
The study was conducted in seven schools from five rural school districts in central Washington state. This region has many agricultural communities that employ seasonal migrant workers, so the schools enroll a large number of migrant students.
This study included 191 English language learning first- through sixth-grade students. Students from four schools were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group, while three schools created a matched comparison group for the treatment groups. The WWC could not separate effects for groups formed on a random and non-random (that is, those that used matching without random assignment) basis, so the WWC rated this study as a quasi-experimental design. All participants were migrant students (lived in the Unted States for six years on average) whose native language was Spanish, and their average age was 9.49 years old. There were slightly more boys (53%) than girls (47%) in the study and slightly more treatment group students (n=99) than comparison group students (n=92). A total of 168 students (90 treatment, 78 control) completed the Letter-Word posttest, and 167 students (89 treatment, 78 control) completed the Word Attack posttest.
Participants used Fast ForWord Language, an adaptive computer-based training program based on acoustically modified speech and language training. Students were presented with seven exercises as computer games. Exercises began with acoustic reception and moved on to more complex skills in syntactic and semantic aspects of language. The difficulty of each task was continuously adapted so that participants would get about 80% of the items correct. Participants used the Fast ForWord Language program about 100 minutes a day, five days a week for a minimum of four weeks. Each participant worked on multiple 20-minute Fast ForWord Language training exercises during each session.
The comparison group used their regular curriculum. No information about the regular curriculum was provided.
The study measures in the reading achievement domain included the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised Word Identification and Word Attack subtests. The study measures in the English language development domain were the Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey, the Language Assessment Scales, and the Oral and Written Language Survey. (See Appendix A2.1 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.) The study measures in the phonological awareness domain included the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization (LAC) Test, the Sound Blending subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised, and the Experimental Rhyming and Segmentation Tests. The study measure in the social skill development domain was the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). The WWC review of English language learning interventions does not investigate phonological awareness or social skill development, so results for these domains are not included in this report.
No information about teacher training was provided, except that teachers were instructed not to provide the children with the correct responses. The primary role of the teacher present during the intervention was to troubleshoot any technical difficulties.
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