Hobbs, L. Jon, Overby, Melanie (2019). Culver City, CA: Evaluation and Training Institute. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED605302
Reviewed: June 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Acadience Reading Composite Score |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Weeks |
Grade-based cohort; Cohort 1: Pre-test administered in spring of kindergarten year; Post-test administered in fall of grade 1. ;
|
-22.80 |
-27.45 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Acadience Reading Composite Score |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Weeks |
Grade-based cohort; Cohort 2: Pre-test administered in spring of grade 1; Post-test administered in fall of grade 2. ;
|
17.35 |
-21.81 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Acadience: Oral Reading Fluency |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
4 Weeks |
Grade-based cohort; Cohort 3: Pre-test administered in spring of grade 2; Post-test administered in fall of grade 3. ;
|
-17.48 |
-18.05 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
Students participating in UPSTART attended early elementary school in one of 18 rural school districts in Utah.
Using the student-level matching procedure, each sample contained equal numbers of treatment and control subjects exactly balanced in terms of the categorical matching variables and statistically non-significantly distinct in terms of baseline Acadience Reading scores. Specifically, for each school, treatment and control observations were selected for the same number of boys and girls, the same number of whites and non-whites, the same number of low-income and non-low-income students, and so on. This creation of a matched control group will improve our precision in estimating treatment (page 16-17). effects.
The program was designed to promote mastery of literacy skills that prepared students over the summer for entry into the next grade level through an individualized learning sequencer that adapted to each child’s skill level. Based on student performance, the sequencer ran remedial activities to reteach and practice skills again or advanced to another objective if students mastered concepts. Required usage of the program software was 15 minutes of day, five days a week from June through August.
Business as usual (no specific summer intervention).
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