Klingbeil, David A.; Moeyaert, Mariola; Archer, Christopher T.; Chimboza, Tatenda M.; Zwolski, Scott A., Jr. (2017). School Psychology Review, v46 n1 p122-140 Mar 2017. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141162
Reviewed: September 2022
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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 98% | |
| No FRPL | 2% |
This study took place in one public charter school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Participants include five students in grades 2 and 3 from one public school. The students were nominated by their teachers to receive additional reading support, based on their reading skills. Three of the students were male. All five students were Hispanic and English Language Learners but none received limited English proficiency services. Information on student's race was not provided. In the study school, 98% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, but eligibility is not reported for the 5 target students.
During the intervention sessions of the multiple baseline design, students received peer-mediated incremental rehearsal, focused on helping them learn words that were unknown to them prior to the study. Before the study, the authors determined which words were unknown for each student using the Fry list of high-frequency words. Participants were shown each word and if they read the word incorrectly or took longer than 3 seconds, the word was considered "unknown" (other words were considered "known"). The researcher then randomly selected three unknown words and seven known words for each student. The intervention sessions were implemented by four peer tutors, with oversight from a graduate research assistant. The peer tutors were 8 years old and in grade 3, were Spanish and English speakers, and were nominated by teachers as students with "well-developed" English fluency. During each intervention session, one of the peer tutors introduced the unknown words to the student. They asked the participant to read the first unknown word aloud and provided corrective feedback if the participant read the word incorrectly. The tutor then presented this unknown word and a sequence of known words until all seven known words were presented. The tutor followed the same procedures to introduce the second and third unknown words. The peer-mediated incremental rehearsal intervention sessions each lasted about 10 minutes, with the number of intervention sessions ranging from 8 to 25 depending on the student. The average number of sessions per student was 19.
There is no comparison group in single case designs. During the baseline sessions of the multiple baseline design, the students received their typical classroom instruction alongside other students. Graduate student researchers were present for data collection purposes.
The assistant provided training to each peer tutor during 3 or 4 20-minute sessions. The training included modeling the intervention for the peer, teaching the peer to introduce unknown words to the student and how to provide corrective feedback, and practicing the components of the intervention. In addition, peers were provided with a script to use for each session. Once a tutor administered the intervention to a graduate assistant with no errors, they were considered to be sufficiently trained.
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