Cantrell, S. C., Carter, J. C., & Rintamaa, M. (2012). Lexington: Collaborative Center for Literacy Development, University of Kentucky.
Reviewed: December 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Score |
Kentucky Cognitive Literacy Model (KCLM) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
36.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in nine high schools in nine school districts serving high proportions of at-risk students in Kentucky. Note that in some schools, both intervention and comparison students received some additional reading support as part of other programs.
The analytic sample for the GRADE outcome was 43% female, 12% minority, 62% eligible for FRPL, and 16% in special education.
The KCLM is a program designed to support students who are reading behind grade level and improve their general literacy achievement, in accordance with the Adolescent Literacy review protocol. Students in the intervention group received supplemental literacy instruction using the KCLM in place of a daily elective class during ninth grade. The classes ranged in size from 12-20 students, and met for between 45-75 minutes per day. The intervention components included Motivation & Engagement, Strategic Processing, Instructional Strategies for Content Learning, and Communication Skills. Schools hired teachers for this course who received training and on-site support in the summer before the intervention and during the school year. Teachers were given 11 days of training and site visits and distance support by KDE literacy staff. School administrators also received training and support: 1 day of summer training and six on-site visits by KDE literacy staff during the school year.
The comparison condition was "business-as-usual," with comparison students taking an elective instead of the supplemental literacy course.
Teachers were given 11 days of training and site visits and distance support by KDE literacy staff. School administrators also received training and support: 1 day of summer training and six on-site visits by KDE literacy staff during the school year.
Reviewed: March 2016
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.
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