Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126–142. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ796794
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Master Test, Revised - Word Attack |
Reading intervention—Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.28 |
94.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Reading intervention—Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.59 |
95.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 72% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 28% |
The students received the intervention in small groups outside of the classroom.
Students in the Study 1 sample were 64 percent male, 72 percent Hispanic, 90 percent receiving free or reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent disability identified.
Treatment students received a single dose of intervention with one 30-minute daily session (Study 1). The following components were included in the intervention: 1. Phonics and word recognition (15 minutes): Instruction included letter names, letter sounds (building from individual letter sounds to letter combinations), reading and spelling regular and irregular words, word family patterns (e.g., fin, tin, bin), and word building (e.g., work, works, worked, working). 2. Fluency (5 minutes): Fluency exercises addressed improving reading speed and accuracy. Activities addressed three skill areas: letter names and sounds, word reading, and passage reading. 3. Passage reading and comprehension (10 minutes): Students read short passages building from three to four words to more than 40 words. Passages incorporated sounds and words previously taught through phonics and word recognition exercises. Comprehension questions integrating literal and inferential thinking followed each passage. Tutors taught strategies for finding answers for or clues to answer the comprehension questions. 4. The tutors were observed weekly and provided feedback during the intervention periods.
In Study 1, 10 students in the comparison group did not receive any additional reading instruction beyond regular classroom instruction. The other 19 received from 30 to 700 minutes of additional reading services per week.
All tutors received 15 hours of training during a one-month period prior to the start of the intervention. Training included instructional techniques for the critical components of the intervention (phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Training also covered effective instructional techniques, lesson planning, progress monitoring, and group management techniques. Tutors prepared full sets of lesson plans to be used in simulated practice sessions and received feedback from trainers. Each tutor was observed at least once a week and given feedback on implementation, and participated in weekly meetings.
Reviewed: June 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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide