Study: 89419

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

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

Passage reading fluency-oral outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Oral reading fluency (ORF): Calhoon et al. (2010)	Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Integrated vs. Alternating; 59 students	109.72	91.03	No	--

Passage reading fluency-silent outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Gray Silent Reading Test	Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Integrated vs. Alternating; 59 students	83.44	80.03	No	--
Reading Fluency Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Integrated vs. Alternating; 59 students	83.43	83.28	No	--

Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Integrated vs. Alternating; 59 students	87.64	84.06	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Integrated vs. Alternating; 59 students	94.43	92.72	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: 37%
Male: 63%
Suburban
- 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
Asian		12%
Black		25%
Other or unknown		29%
White		34%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		29%
Not Hispanic or Latino		71%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place at two middle schools in a southeastern U.S. school district. Instruction for all modules took place during students’ daily 70-minute special education resource language arts class period.

Study sample

Student participants were in middle school (sixth to eighth grades) with reading disabilities and on average approximately 12 years old. The Alternating intervention group was 37.9 percent female and the Integrated group was 36.7 percent female. The Alternating intervention group was 20.7 percent Hispanic, 37.9 percent White, 24.1 percent African American, and 17.2 percent Asian; the Integrated group was 36.7 percent Hispanic, 30.0 percent White, 26.7 percent African American, and 6.7 percent Asian. The majority of the sample was in sixth grade. In the Alternating group, five students (17.2 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest of the students had not been retained. In the Integrated group, two students (6.7 percent) had been retained two years, 10 students (33.3 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest (18 students, 60 percent) had not been retained. In the Alternating group, 14 students (48.3 percent) had attended two schools, 14 students (48.3 percent) had attended three or four schools, and 1 student (3.4 percent) had attended between five and eight schools. In the Integrated group, 11 students (36.7 percent) had attended two schools, 16 students (53.3 percent) had attended three or four schools, and 3 students (10 percent) had attended five to eight schools. Fifty-seven percent of students had a specific learning disability. Of the six teachers, five teachers were female, one was male, five were White, and one was African American. The mean age of the teachers was 51.22 years (SD=3.52, range 48-57); and the mean number of years teaching was 8.88 years (SD=4.04, range 3-13 years). One teacher was teaching on a special education emergency license, one had a bachelor’s degree, three had master’s degrees, and one had an Ed.S. degree in education.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention condition was the Integrated component of the Reading Achievement Multi-Modular Program (RAMP-UP). RAMP-UP is an expansion of the Linguistics Skills Training program (LST)/Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program. RAMP-UP incorporates small group sizes, directed questioning and responses, guided practice, explicit and direct instruction, extended practice opportunities with feedback, breaking down tasks into component parts, reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, and contextual reading. Instruction took place during the student’s daily 70-min special education resource language arts class period. The intervention duration was 45 minutes per day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks. In the Integrated module, all components are taught together in each lesson. The Integrated module combines instruction of the spelling and fluency components with the linguistics skill component. The organization of the Integrated module is 3 days of linguistics skills, spelling, and fluency instruction alternated with 2 days of comprehension instruction, for each week of implementation.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition is the Alternating component of RAMP-UP, which is comprised of linguistics skill instruction in isolation 3 days a week alternated with comprehension instruction in isolation 2 days a week, for each week of implementation. Instruction occurred 45 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks.

Support for implementation

Before the study began, the teachers participated in a 2-day workshop that focused on the instructional components (linguistics, spelling, fluency, and comprehension). During the first training session, teachers were taught peer-mediated procedures for the components and used role-playing techniques to practice. Then, the structure and content of each component were taught. An additional 33 hours of training was provided throughout the 26 weeks of implementation to support the teaching of linguistics skills and spelling. Graduate research assistants (GRAs) provided ongoing support by participating in 90 percent of all lessons, helping monitor students during lesson implementation, and providing corrective feedback.

Reorganizing the Instructional Reading Components: Could There Be a Better Way to Design Remedial Reading Programs to Maximize Middle School Students with Reading Disabilities' Response to Treatment? [Reading intervention 3 vs. Reading intervention 2 (Calhoon et al. (2010))]