Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Harn, B., Coyne, M. D., Stoolmiller, M., Santoro, L. E., Kaufman, N. K. (2007). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 331–347. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ772549
Reviewed: February 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Untaught vocabulary |
Beginning reading intervention with highly detailed, scripted instruction—Simmons et al. (2007) vs. Open Court Reading© |
0 Days |
Intervention group vs. Open Court Reading 2000 comparison group;
|
12.09 |
10.77 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised |
Beginning reading intervention with highly detailed, scripted instruction—Simmons et al. (2007) vs. Open Court Reading© |
0 Days |
Intervention group vs. Open Court Reading 2000 comparison group;
|
93.38 |
94.13 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in seven Title I elementary schools in the Pacific Northwest (U.S.).
The study did not provide sample characteristics for only the two study groups included in this SRG. The study did provide school-level sample characteristics across all three study groups: 32 to 63 percent of students at each school qualified for free or reduced price lunch, 84 percent were white, 13 percent were Latino/Hispanic, 58 percent were boys, and the mean age in the fall was 5 years 7 months.
The study compares the effectiveness of three supplemental reading interventions: 1. An author developed intervention (30/H) consisted of 30 minutes of daily, highly structured supplemental reading instruction including phonemic awareness, the alphabet, and spelling. 2. Another author developed intervention (15/H+15) consisted 15 minutes of daily, highly structured supplemental reading instruction covering the same topics as (30/H), and a second 15 minutes of daily instruction focusing on learning vocabulary and understanding stories. 3. A third intervention (30/M) consisted of 30 minutes of daily supplemental instruction focusing on phonemic awareness and letters. The third intervention was based on the Sounds and Letters component of the Open Court Reading 2000 program and is described as "moderately specified" compared to the highly specified design of the first two interventions. This SRG focuses on the comparison of the 15/H+15 (intervention) and 30/M (comparison) study groups. The 15/H+15 intervention consisted of: Teachers and teaching assistants provided groups of 5 or fewer students with highly detailed, scripted instruction that incorporated scaffolding and specific examples for students. The first half of each lesson taught phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge. The second half focused on understanding story structure, encouraging story retelling, and learning vocabulary through repeated readings of storybooks, targeted vocabulary lessons, and exposing students to vocabulary words multiple times within and across lessons. Instruction involved 108 30-minute lessons daily during supplemental instruction time, either before or after the typical school day.
Teachers and teaching assistants provided groups of 5 or fewer students with moderately detailed instruction on phonemic awareness and letters, based on the Sounds and Letters component of Open Court Reading 2000.
No information is provided about the training of the teachers and teaching assistants who implemented the intervention, however interventionists were given feedback by the research team after classroom observations.
Reviewed: October 2014
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 Open Court Reading©.
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