Little, M. E., Rawlinson, D., Simmons, D. C., Kim, M., Kwok, O., Hagan-Burke, S., . . . Coyne, M. D. (2012). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(4), 189–202. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00366. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ986226
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Sound-Matching |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Intervention |
126 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.63 |
8.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Intervention |
126 Days |
Full sample;
|
37.74 |
32.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Intervention |
126 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.75 |
10.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Intervention |
126 Days |
Full sample;
|
108.31 |
106.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Intervention |
126 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.26 |
105.57 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in 8 central Florida elementary schools by 21 reading interventionists who worked with 90 kindergarten students.
Table 2 provides information on the demographic characteristics of the students in the sample. The mean age of the children in each group was similar (5.51 in the intervention group and 5.55 in the comparison group). A small portion of each group received special education services (9% of the intervention group, 13 percent of the intervention group). Approximately 16% of students in the intervention group received English language learner services, compared to approximately 22% of students in the comparison group.
The Early Reading intervention was delivered to students in the intervention group. Students were grouped according to their scores on the screening and pre-test assessments and adjustments were made based on student progress. Students were given Early Reading in-program assessments every four weeks and their instruction was accelerated or modified accordingly. Instructors implemented 126 lessons of the Early Reading Intervention to groups of 5 students. The intervention contained four units: learning letters and sounds; segmenting, blending and integrating sounds; reading words; reading sentences and storybooks. The intervention involved daily 30-minute sessions.
Reading interventionists worked with students in the comparison group using the typical school-designed beginning reading intervention. The students in the comparison group received 30 minutes of small-group, supplemental instruction per day. The exact type of supplemental instruction varied by school, with some schools using commercial intervention programs and some schools using teacher-constructed and/or district core curriculum materials.
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