References

 

Meet WWC evidence standards with reservations

Haslam, M. B., White, R. N., & Klinge, A. (2006). Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Austin Independent School District, 2004–05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Interactive Inc. (2002). An efficacy study of READ 180, a print and electronic adaptive intervention program, grades 4 and above. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

Lang, L. H., Torgesen, J. K., Petscher, Y., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., & Lefsky, E. (2008, March). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Paper presented at the annual research conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, VA.

Scholastic Research. (2008). Desert Sands Unified School District, CA. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.

White, R. N., Haslam, M. B., & Hewes, G. M. (2006). Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Phoenix Union High School District, 2003–04 and 2004–05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Additional source:
Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). READ 180: Longitudinal evaluation of a ninth-grade reading intervention (2003–2006). New York: Scholastic Inc.

White, R. N., Williams, I. J., & Haslem, M. B. (2005). Performance of District 23 students participating in Scholastic READ 180. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Admon, N. (2003). READ 180 stage C: An evaluation within the Federal Job Corps Program. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Aguhob, M. (2006). READ 180 in Seminole County, Florida. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Aguhob, M. (2007). READ 180 in Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2005–2006. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210–227). New York: Guilford Press. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Banasik, B. (2002). The effectiveness of Scholastic’s READ 180 curriculum in improving reading comprehension in middle school aged students having a specific learning disability. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Barbato, P. F. (2007). A preliminary evaluation of the READ 180 program (Doctoral dissertation, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(11A), 46–4130. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Bebon, C. D. (2007). The impact of a reading program designed to increase comprehension and proficiency of middle school migrant students in a south Texas school district (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University–Kingsville, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(7A), 104–2877. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Benavidez-Candelaria, M. R. (2006). An investigation of the program READ 180 and the effect it has on students’ reading scores and students’ grades. Unpublished master’s thesis, New Mexico Highlands University, Las Vegas. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bishop-Temple, C. (2008). The effects of interactive read-alouds on the reading achievement of middle grade reading students in a core remedial program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(10A), 4179. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Blasewitz, M. R., & Taylor, R. T. (1999). Attacking literacy with technology in an urban setting. Middle School Journal, 30(3), 33–39. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Brennan, T., Leuer, M., Boyer, D., Dalessi, M., Newman, D., & Yepes-Baraya, M. (2006). Rhetoric to reality: Addressing reading achievement in secondary education. Palo Alto, CA: Empirical Education. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Brown, L. (2006). The impact of self-perception, reading attitude, and the use of the READ 180 program on reading achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Gwynedd-Mercy College, Gwynedd Valley, PA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Brown, S. H. (2006). The effectiveness of the READ 180 intervention for struggling readers in grades 6–8 (Doctoral dissertation, Union University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(8A), 246–2922. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Caggiano, J. A. (2007). Addressing the learning needs of struggling adolescent readers: The impact of a reading intervention program on students in a middle school setting (Doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(4A), 1383. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Campbell, Y. C. (2006). Effects of an integrated learning system on the reading achievement of middle school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(8A), 100–2923. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Chmielewski, T. (2005). Differentiating reading instruction in an alternative high school using READ 180. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mount Mary College, Milwaukee, WI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Denman, J. S. (2004). Integrating technology into the reading curriculum: Acquisition, implementation, and evaluation of a reading program with a technology component (READ 180) for struggling readers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(5A), 1717. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. (2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Dunn, C. A. (2002). An investigation of the effects of computer assisted reading instruction versus traditional reading instruction on selected high school freshmen. Unpublished dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago, IL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the effects are not reported separately for the intervention.

Felty, R. L. (2008). READ 180 implementation: Reading achievement and motivation to read within an alternative education middle school program (Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(1A), 182–161. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Ferguson, J. M. (2005). The implementation of technology in reading classrooms and the impact of technology integration and student perceptions on reading achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University–Commerce. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Gentry, L. (2006). An evaluation of READ 180 in an urban secondary school (Doctoral dissertation, American University, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(9A), 151–3346. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the overall attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.

Goodloe-Johnson, M. L., McGinley, N. J., Rose, J. S., & Kokkins, A. (2006). Implementation of READ 180 (reading intervention program) in CCSD schools, Brief No. 06-Brief 014. Charleston, SC: Charleston County School District Department of Assessment and Accountability. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. I. (2004). Literacy instruction for older struggling readers: What is the role of technology? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20(2), 123–144. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., Taylor, R., Bottge, B., & Daley, P. (1997). The computer doesn’t embarrass me. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 30–33. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Hewes, G. M., Palmer, N., Haslam, M. B., & Mielke, M. B. (2006). Five years of READ 180 in Des Moines: Improving literacy among middle school and high school special education students. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Holyoke Public Schools. (2006). READ 180 overview. Holyoke, MA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Iwamiya, C., & Pritchard, R. (2005). Application and effects of Scholastic’s READ 180 as an after-school reading intervention program for English language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Knutson, K. A. (2006). Because you can’t wait until spring: Using the SRI to improve reading performance. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Kratofil, M. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of Scholastic READ 180 and traditional reading interventions on the reading achievement of middle school low-level readers (Master’s thesis, University of Central Missouri, 2006). Master’s Abstracts International, 44(6), 52–2531. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Lupino, E. (2005). Taking place: The teacher in reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Moore, S. A. (2007). Impact of READ 180 on reader's lexile scores in grades three through five. Unpublished master’s thesis, Troy University, Troy, AL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Nave, J. (2007). An assessment of READ 180 regarding its association with the academic achievement of at-risk students in Sevier County schools (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(6A), 2265. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Palmer, N. (2003). READ 180 middle-school study: Des Moines, Iowa, 2000–2002: An evaluation of READ 180 with special education students. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Papalewis, R. (2002). A study of the intensive academic support program and READ 180 in the Los Angeles Unified School District. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 24–37.

Papalewis, R. (2003). A study of READ 180 in middle schools in Clark County School District, Las Vegas, Nevada. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Pearson, L. M., & White, R. N. (2004). Study of the impact of READ 180 on student performance in Fairfax County Public Schools. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Santa Rosa County School District. (n.d.). READ 180 update: Santa Rosa County School District. Santa Rosa, FL: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (2005). READ 180 implementation year study. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Blackhawk Middle School. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Carthage Central School District. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Glendale Union High School District. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Indian River School District. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Madison Middle School. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Martin Luther King Elementary School. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Sebastopol Attendance Center. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Socorro Independent School District, TX. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Inc. (n.d.). Platinum performers: Westwood Middle School, Alachua County Public Schools, Gainesville, Florida. New York, NY: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). A study of READ 180 stages A and B in upper elementary and middle schools in Iredell-Statesville Schools, North Carolina. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Calera Elementary School, Calera, Alabama. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Carter Junior High School, Arlington, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Harding Senior High School, St. Paul, Minnesota. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Highview Elementary School, Nanuet, New York. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Holmes Middle School, Alexandria, Virginia. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Lufkin High School, Lufkin, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Marshall Middle School, Beaumont, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Miami Lakes Educational Center, Miami Lakes, Florida. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Raba Elementary School, San Antonio, Texas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). READ 180: Compilation of school studies: Impact study. READ 180 reports guide: Using data to drive instruction (pp. 80). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Rochester Elementary School, Rochester, Pennsylvania. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Rogers Middle School, Boston, Massachusetts. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). South Ocean Middle School, Patchogue, New York. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Transitional Resource Education Center, Kansas City, Kansas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Two Eagle River School, Pablo, Montana. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Washington Middle School, Kenosha, Wisconsin. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2003). Wyandotte County Juvenile Center, Kansas City, Kansas. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2004). A study of READ 180 at Shiprock High School in Central Consolidated School District on the Navajo Indian Reservation, New Mexico. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2006). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2006). READ 180: A heritage of research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2007). Department of Defense Education Activity Schools (DoDEA). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2007). Phoenix College, AZ. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the review protocol.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Compendium of READ 180 research. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Martin County Public Schools, FL. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Peoria Public School District 150, IL. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Socorro Independent School District, TX. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Traverse City Area Public Schools, MI. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (n.d.). New York City Public Schools, region 8 (third grade). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation. (n.d.). READ 180 stage B: St. Paul School District, Minnesota. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scholastic Research and Validation & Indian River School District. (2006). Special education students, Selbyville Middle and Sussex Central Middle Schools, Indian River School District (Delaware). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Shanahan, C. (2005). Adolescent literacy intervention programs: Chart and program review guide. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Soto, J. (2004). The effects of READ 180 on the reading fluency of fifth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, San Marcos. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Thomas, D. M. (2005). Examining the academic and motivational outcomes of students participating in the READ 180 program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(1A), 96–112. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Thomas, J. (2003). Reading program evaluation: READ 180, grades 4–8, November, 2003. Kirkwood, MO: Kirkwood School District. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Thompson, L. T. (2005). READ 180: An English language learner intervention strategy with grades 6–8. Unpublished master’s thesis, Alabama A&M University, Normal. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the review protocol.

Thorpe, P. K. (2003). Escher’s intersecting worlds: Evaluation as a reflection of the evaluation, the evaluator being reflected in the evaluation. Wichita, KS: Wichita Public Schools. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Visher, M., & Hartry, A. (2007). Can after-school programs boost academic achievement? An impact evaluation of a reading intervention in an after-school program. Washington, DC: MPR Associates, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it does not provide adequate information to determine whether it uses an outcome that is valid or reliable.

Wahl, M. (2008). READ 180 Enterprise Edition. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

White, L. M. (2007). A middle school under review: A study on the effectiveness of two implementation models of the READ 180 program on special education students’ reading performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(1A), 63–117. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Witkowski, P. M. (2004). A comparison study of two intervention programs for reading-delayed high school students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Saint Louis, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(6A), 163–2142. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Zapata, J. M. (2007). If I can read, I can learn: Examining the effects of READ 180 on the reading comprehension of English language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, San Marcos. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the review protocol.

Zvoch, K., & Letourneau, L. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: An examination of the status and growth of ninth grade READ 180 students. Las Vegas, NV: Clark County School District. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.