Study: 89382

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2021

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards with reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

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.

Findings

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - below grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 61 students	49.41	36.71	Yes	24
Show Supplemental Findings
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - above grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 61 students	28.83	2.97	Yes	43
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Expository subtest - on grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 61 students	35.15	8.32	Yes	42
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Silent Narrative subtest - on grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 57 students	44.06	19.83	Yes	34
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Oral Narrative subtest - above grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 45 students	41.38	17.68	Yes	32
Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Oral Narrative subtest - on grade level	Reading intervention (Thames et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 46 students	52.48	37.26	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 57%
Male: 43%
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South

Race
Black		80%
Other or unknown		9%
White		11%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in a single school in the southeastern region of the United States, though one student came from a nearby school.

Study sample

The authors provide characteristics of the 93 students they describe as remaining the study for the entire time. Among these 93 students, 57 percent were female and 43 percent were male. Eighty percent were Black, 11 percent were White, and 9 percent had unknown race. Students were mostly evenly distributed across grades 4 through 8, with 26 percent in grade 4, 29 percent in grade 5, 22 percent in grade 6, 11 percent in grade 7, and 13 percent in grade 8.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention consisted of 20 90-minute sessions, 10 of these took place in the Fall semester and the other 10 occurred in the Spring semester. Students receiving the intervention were paired with a preservice teacher. During the first two weeks of the Fall semester, preservice teachers examined their assigned students’ pre-test performance on Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) assessment, observed their assigned students in the classrooms, consulted with the students’ classroom teachers, and administered an informal interest inventory and the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna and Kear, 1990) to their assigned students. Using this information, they developed a written analysis of students’ strengths and weaknesses and a series of lessons focused on students' needs. A reading course instructor reviewed all lesson plans and provided feedback prior to implementation. During the subsequent 10 weeks, preservice teachers met once a week one-on-one with their assigned students to deliver the lesson plans. The rest of the week, students received the usual basal reading instruction delivered by their regular English language arts (ELA) teacher. At the end of the Fall semester, the preservice teachers documented their students’ reading progress and provided specific recommendations for continuing instruction. In the Spring semester, a new group of preservice teachers used these assessments to plan instruction.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition received basal reading instruction during the 90-minute reading block. Basal reading focused on vocabulary acquisition, word recognition, and comprehension.

Support for implementation

Preservice teachers delivering the intervention completed three courses in literacy instruction and were enrolled in the fourth course, which focused on reading assessment and instruction, by Fall semester. Lesson plans for each assigned student developed by preservice teachers were reviewed by their instructor, who provided feedback.

Reading Comprehension: Effects of Individualized, Integrated Language Arts as a Reading Approach with Struggling Readers [Individualized integrated approach vs. business as usual]