Tracey, L., Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., & Hanley, P. (2014). SAGE Open, 4(3), 1–10.
Reviewed: March 2017
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 Success for All®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
64.66 |
61.47 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
29.22 |
27.65 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The York Assessment of Reading Comprehension (YARC) Comprehension |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
53.04 |
52.61 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The York Assessment of Reading Comprehension (YARC) Reading Rate |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
60.97 |
58.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
The York Assessment of Reading Comprehension (YARC) Accuracy |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
47.50 |
46.64 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study was conducted in 35 schools in England.
Schools were recruited in spring 2008 to participate in the study, which began in fall 2008 at the start of the 2008–09 school year. All 20 intervention schools were already implementing SFA®. Once 20 SFA® schools were recruited, recruitment began for comparison schools with similar demographic and achievement characteristics; matching criteria included school-level achievement, percentage of students eligible for free school meals, and the percentage of students with English as an Additional Language (EAL). The percentage of students with EAL in 20 intervention schools was 45%, and in 20 comparison schools it was 22%. The percentage of students eligible for free school meals was 44% in intervention schools and 33% in comparison schools. Students in the sample began the study in the Reception year (pre-K) and were followed for 3 years, through Year 2—the equivalent of first grade in the United States. The WWC based effectiveness ratings on findings after 3 years of exposure from the analytic sample of 886 students in 17 intervention and 18 comparison schools: 415 students in the SFA® group and 471 in the comparison group.
Students in the intervention group received reading instruction through SFA-UK®. The instruction was aligned with normal SFA® practices that include the SFA® reading curriculum, tutoring for students, quarterly assessments, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. The family services component of SFA® was underutilized, with the emphasis being on within-school practices. Intervention schools were already implementing SFA®, and the study was conducted over the entire school year for 3 successive school years.
Students in the comparison group continued using their regular, previously planned curricula (i.e., Letters and Sounds; Jolly Phonics; Read, Write Inc.). No other information was provided on the comparison curricula.
At SFA® schools, classroom observations were conducted to produce general assessment of implementation fidelity, and trainers from SFA-UK® made their normal implementation visits throughout each year of the study.
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