|
|
Effectiveness
Findings
The WWC review of interventions for Adolescent Literacy addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general literacy achievement. The studies included in this report cover all four domains. Alphabetics includes five constructs: phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, letter knowledge, print awareness, and phonics. Comprehension includes two constructs: reading comprehension and vocabulary development. General literacy achievement includes two constructs: general reading achievement and other literacy achievement. The findings below present the authors’ estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects of Fast ForWord® on adolescent learners.11
Alphabetics. Two studies reviewed findings in the alphabetics domain. Scientific Learning Corporation (2007a) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Queensland University Inventory of Literacy (QUIL), nor was the effect large enough to be considered substantively important according to the WWC criteria (that is, an effect size of at least 0.25). Beattie (2000) did not find statistically significant effects of Fast ForWord® on the Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, and Auditory Processing subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability, or on the Wide Range Achievement Spelling subtest. The effects also were not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
For the alphabetics domain, both studies showed indeterminate effects.
Reading fluency. Beattie (2000) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Gray Oral Reading Test, but the effect was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
Comprehension. Six studies reviewed findings in the comprehension domain. Beattie (2000) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension subtest, but the effect was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Borman and Benson (2006) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Terra Nova Reading test, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Overbay and Baenen (2002) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the North Carolina End of Grade Reading Test, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to the WWC criteria. Scientific Learning Corporation (2004a) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Ohio Proficiency Test Reading score, but the effect was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Scientific Learning Corporation (2004b) found, and WWC confirmed, a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Scientific Learning Corporation (2007b) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Reading Measure of Academic Progress, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
For the comprehension domain, one study showed statistically significant positive effects, two studies showed substantively important positive effects, and three studies showed indeterminate effects.
General literacy achievement. Five studies reviewed findings in the general literacy achievement domain. Rouse and Krueger (2004) did not find statistically significant effects of Fast ForWord® on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Success for All assessment, and a state standardized reading test, and none of the effects were large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Scientific Learning Corporation (2007a) did not find statistically significant effects of Fast ForWord® on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Receptive and Expressive subtests, and neither of the effects was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Borman and Benson (2006) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Terra Nova Language test, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Beattie (2000) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, nor was the effect large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Scientific Learning Corporation (2007b) did not find a statistically significant effect of Fast ForWord® on the Language Measure of Academic Progress, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
For the general literacy achievement domain, all five studies showed indeterminate effects.
Rating of effectiveness
The WWC rates the effects of an intervention in a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and the comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies (see the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Appendix E).
11 The level of statistical significance was reported by the study authors or, when necessary, calculated by the WWC to correct for clustering within classrooms or schools and for multiple comparisons. For an explanation, see the WWC Tutorial on Mismatch. For the formulas the WWC used to calculate the statistical significance, see WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Appendix C for clustering and WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Appendix D for multiple comparisons. In all studies except Borman and Benson (2002), Scientific Learning Corporation (2004a, 2004b), and Overbay and Baenen (2002), a correction for multiple comparisons was needed, so the significance levels may differ from those reported in the original studies.