Vernon-Feagans, Lynne; Kainz, Kirsten; Hedrick, Amy; Ginsberg, Marnie; Amendum, Steve (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, v105 n4 p1175-1187. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054424
Reviewed: June 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Letter Word Identification |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Spelling of Sounds |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Word Attack |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Passage Comprehension |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPTV-III) |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery (WJ-DRB III): Passage Comprehension |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Struggling readers in Grade 1;
|
462.15 |
455.74 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 55% | |
| White | 45% |
The study was conducted in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in public schools in poor rural counties in Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Texas.
Sixteen rural schools were assigned to matched pairs based on district, school size, school participation in Reading First, and the percentages of students who were minorities and receiving free or reduced-price lunch. One school in each pair was randomly selected for the intervention. One intervention school later left the study due to problems with Internet connectivity. All kindergarten and first-grade classrooms in the remaining 15 schools were included in the study. Teachers identified struggling readers using state assessment data, classroom observation information, and input from the TRI literacy coach. Within each classroom, five struggling readers were randomly selected for the study, for a total of 385 students (220 in the intervention group and 165 in the comparison group). The analytic sample included 247–250 students (158–160 in the intervention group and 87–90 in the comparison group, depending on study outcome) across 15 schools (seven intervention and eight comparison). Over half of the sample was male (63% in the intervention group and 54% in the comparison), and less than half were White (49% in the intervention group and 39% in the comparison group).
Teachers in TRI schools attended a 3-day summer workshop on TRI strategies. During the school year, TRI teachers received biweekly observation and feedback from TRI literacy coaches, and met biweekly with other TRI teachers and their TRI literacy coach to reinforce strategies and problem solve. TRI teachers also participated in workshops every few months to obtain support with understanding of the TRI process, models, and strategies. All school-year support was provided via webcam. The TRI program also provides a website with instructional resources and the ability to interact with coaches via email. During the school year, teachers delivered ongoing one-on-one reading instruction for struggling readers in 15-minute sessions. Each session included the following three components: (1) re-reading selected texts for fluency; (2) “word work” using letter tiles to demonstrate the alphabetic principle, teach phoneme–grapheme relationships, support phonemic awareness development, and improve student recognition of sight words; and (3) guided oral reading (more detail on the three components is provided in the study). Teachers worked individually with a student for an average of 14 sessions over the course of the year. When students made progress, they were placed in a small group, and another struggling reader began receiving one-on-one instruction from the teacher.
Students in the comparison condition continued to receive normal reading instruction, without the use of the TRI, via their regular classroom teacher or other school staff.
All of the TRI coaches had experience as teachers and/or reading coaches in early elementary school. Most were doctoral students in education. The coaches received feedback from the intervention director by providing videotapes of their own teaching of individual students. The coaches received additional feedback throughout the school year, with a particular focus on how to motivate teachers to implement the TRI well.
Reviewed: February 2014
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Word Identification |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Spelling of sounds |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Spelling of sounds |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage comprehension |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Passage comprehension |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) |
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) vs. Non-struggling readers in control schools |
Fall to Spring |
Non-struggling readers in treatment schools;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 50% |
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