Yurchak, Stephen M. (2013). ProQuest LLC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567305
Reviewed: November 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Analyzing Text Cluster Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
38.51 |
39.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Reading Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
41.31 |
42.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Analyzing Text Cluster Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
40.15 |
39.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Reading Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black;
|
40.60 |
40.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Analyzing Text Cluster Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Black;
|
37.50 |
37.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Analyzing Text Cluster Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
37.82 |
38.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Reading Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male;
|
41.32 |
42.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New Jersey High School Proficiency Assessment Reading Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female;
|
40.80 |
42.70 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 17% | |
| White | 43% |
| Hispanic | 40% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 60% |
The study took place in a single, large urban high school in northern New Jersey.
This study used a quasi-experimental design, matching students in grade 9 receiving READ 180® instruction with students in regular English 9 classes on pretest Language Arts Literacy (LAL) scores from the grade 8 state assessment. Students were eligible for the study if they did not meet proficiency levels on the Language Arts Literacy (portion of the grade 8 state assessment, and if they were on the general education track in school. The overall sample is made up of students in grade 9 from three consecutive cohorts from the 2007–08, 2008–09, and 2009–10 school years. Only students with complete data (those who were in the same school district in grades 8–11) were eligible to be matched and be in the study. The study took place in one school. READ 180® was offered in six class sections the first year, four class sections the second year, and five class sections the third year. Across the cohorts, 67 students had complete data and were able to be matched to students who had participated in English 9.The intervention and comparison groups were both 52% male. The intervention group was 52% White, 27% Hispanic, and 20% African American. The comparison group was 52% Hispanic, 34% White, and 13% African American. The majority of students in both the intervention group (61%) and the comparison group (72%) qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
Students in the intervention group were exposed to the READ 180® intervention for a full school year. Classes were 80 minutes daily, which closely resembled the prototypical 90-minute five-class instructional model. Of the 15 READ 180® sections, 13 were inclusion-based classrooms, and two were general education. Inclusion classes were taught by a content-certified English teacher and a special education teacher; general education sections were taught by a content-certified English teacher.
Comparison students took part in the standard English 9 course, which was 40 minutes long.
Teachers delivering the intervention were trained by READ 180® personnel or others in the district who were previously trained in READ 180®.
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