Study: 89464

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 (Barth et al. (2016)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, 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

Listening comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Oral Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 128 students	97.83	97.51	No	--
Test of Listening Comprehension-Understanding Messages (Barth et al., 2016)	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 122 students	96.14	97.64	No	--
Test of Listening Comprehension-Detail (Barth et al., 2016)	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 120 students	91.31	92.18	No	--
Test of Listening Comprehension-Vocabulary and Semantics (Barth et al., 2016)	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 121 students	97.96	99.67	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Key Word and Main Idea (Barth et al., 2016)	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 130 students	7.87	6.73	Yes	--
Bridge-IT	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 129 students	4.54	4.48	No	--
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test - Fourth Edition	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 126 students	481.45	482.87	No	--
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 127 students	90.08	91.19	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: 46%
Male: 54%
Rural
- 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
Midwest

Race
Black		9%
Other or unknown		7%
White		84%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		3%
Not Hispanic or Latino		97%

Study Details

Setting

This study was conducted in three public middle schools from three school districts in the rural Midwest.

Study sample

Across the sample, 46 percent were female, 77 percent were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 31 percent received special education services. Eighty-four percent were White, 9 percent were Black, 3 percent were Hispanic, and 5 percent were of other races or ethnicities. Students were in grades 6 through 8, with higher numbers of students in grades 6 (n=51) and 7 (n=55) than grades 8. There were 42 students with disabilities in the final sample, 19 of whom were labeled with a specific learning disability.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students received the intervention for 40 minutes per session, 4 times per week for 8 weeks in small, mixed-grade groups of 4 to 6 students. Across the three school districts, students received an average of 17.3 hours of instruction, but the number of intervention sessions that students received varied significantly. Interventionists used semi-scripted lessons and grade-level science texts organized around four, two-week thematic units. The intervention was delivered using explicit instructional routines, feedback, and gradual release of responsibility to students. Each instructional lesson consisted of three components: 1) identifying keywords and main ideas, 2) synthesizing information within a single text for summarization and making inferences, and 3) integrating information across multiple texts. Intervention group students continued to participate in core content area classes.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison group participated in elective classes such as band, choir, and art while intervention group students attended intervention sessions. Comparison group students, like intervention group students, continued to participate in core content area classes.

Support for implementation

Interventionists received 12 hours of training on instruction delivery, behavior management, and supporting student engagement. The research team also led weekly meetings with the interventionists to provide ongoing instructional support and supplied scripted lessons for each instructional session.

Effects of a Text-Processing Comprehension Intervention on Struggling Middle School Readers [Text processing intervention vs. business as usual]