Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
WWC review of this study
A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project READ.
Acalin, T. A. (1995). Masters Abstracts International, 33(06), 1660.
-
Quasi-Experimental Designexamining66Students, gradesK-4
Acalin, T. A. (1995). Masters Abstracts International, 33(06), 1660.
Reviewed: July 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 Reading Recovery®.
Reviewed: July 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 Project Read.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Broad Reading subtest |
Project Read vs. Reading Recovery |
one year |
Kindergarten through grade 4;
|
82.91 |
81.54 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 9% | |
| White | 55% |
| Hispanic | 36% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 64% |
The study was conducted with students with learning disabilities from five school districts in three southern California counties—Orange, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles.
The sample for this study included a total of 66 students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through grade 4. Students were identified as learning disabled based on definitions from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the California Code of Regulations and were placed in one of two programs (Project Read ® Phonology or Reading Recovery) by school district personnel. Thirty-three students with learning disabilities were placed in each group. Pretest and posttest data were collected at the start and end of a school year by Resource Specialists. For analysis purposes, pairs of students were formed by matching on gender, grade level, ethnicity, and pretest score. Analysis of pretest scores showed no statistically significant or substantively large differences between groups. All children in the study were from middle socioeconomic households, and English was their primary language. The sample included 61% male children; 55% Caucasian children, 36% Hispanic children, and 9% African-American children.
Students with learning disabilities who participated in Project Read ® Phonology received 30 minutes of small-group instruction (two to five students) daily for one school year, using the Project Read ® Phonology Guide. All instruction was conducted by credentialed Resource Specialists who had five or more years of experience working with students with learning disabilities. Teachers followed the Project Read ® Phonology manuals, lesson by lesson, with minimal program adaptations.
Students with learning disabilities who were in the comparison group participated in Reading Recovery. In this study, students with learning disabilities participated in Reading Recovery 30 minutes daily, receiving one-on-one instruction and using the Rigby Series reading books.
The primary outcome domain assessed was general reading achievement, which was measured by combining the scores of two subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised: the Letter-Word Identification subtest and the Passage Comprehension subtest. Together, these subtests form the Broad Reading cluster of the Woodcock-Johnson battery. The assessment was administered in English by Resource Specialists. Pretesting was done in the fall of the school year and posttesting was done in the spring. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.3.
Project Read ® Phonology teachers received the full training associated with this program (three inservice days—one for phonology, one for comprehension, and one for written language).
Reviewed: July 2007
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 Project Read.
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).