|
|
The WWC review of interventions for Beginning Reading addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. The studies included in this report cover two domains: alphabetics and reading fluency. The findings below present the authors’ estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects of Earobics® on students.8
Alphabetics. Four studies presented findings in the alphabetics domain. Cognitive Concepts (2003) found statistically significant positive effects on three phonological awareness measures (ORAL-J: Blending into Words, Segmenting into Sounds, and Rhyming Words subtests).9 The study authors did not find statistically significant effects of Earobics® on the letter knowledge measure (ORAL-J: Letter Naming subtest) or the phonics measure (ORAL-J: Sound of Letters subtest). The average effect size across the five outcomes was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria (that is, an effect size of at least 0.25).
Gale (2006) analyzed three alphabetics outcomes (DIBELS: Initial Sounds Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtests) for kindergarten students and three outcomes (DIBELS: Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency subtests) for first-grade students. In examining Earobics® versus the group that received no supplemental instruction, the author found, and the WWC confirmed, positive and statistically significant effects of Earobics® for three DIBELS subtests: Initial Sounds Fluency (kindergarten), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (kindergarten and grade 1) and Nonsense Words Fluency (kindergarten and grade 1). There were no statistically significant effects on the DIBELS: Letter Naming Fluency subtest in kindergarten or grade 1. However, the WWC determined that the effects for both grades were large enough to be considered substantively important. The study also compared Earobics® to Lexia, and the author found no statistically significant effect on any of the four DIBELS subtests for either of the two grades. However, the WWC determined that three of the positive effects were large enough to be considered substantively important: Initial Sounds Fluency (kindergarten), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (grade 1) and Nonsense Words Fluency (grade 1). The WWC found that the combined effect for alphabetics across both comparison groups was not statistically significant. However, the WWC determined that the combined effect was large enough to be considered substantively important.
Rehmann (2005) found that the overall Earobics® effect across the three of four alphabetics measures of beginning reading (DIBELS: Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency) was not statistically significant. For one subtest (Nonsense Words Fluency), the WWC determined that the negative effect was substantively important (that is, an effect size with an absolute value of at least 0.25).
Valliath (2002) found that the overall intervention effect across the eight measures of beginning reading was not statistically significant.10 The WWC analyzed four phonological awareness measures (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing [CTOPP]: Blending Words, Blending Non-Words, Elision, and Sound Matching subtests) and two phonics measures (Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Identification and Word Attack subtests). The WWC found that the effect for one of the four phonological awareness tests (CTOPP: Sound Matching subtest) was positive and statistically significant. Effects for the other three phonological awareness subtests and the two phonics subtests were not statistically significant but the WWC determined them to be substantively important. The average effect size across the six outcomes was large enough to be considered substantively important according to the WWC criteria.
Reading fluency. Two studies presented findings in the reading fluency domain. In analyzing ORAL-J: Words per Minute subtest data, Cognitive Concepts (2003) did not find statistically significant effects of Earobics®, and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. Gale (2006) found positive but not statistically significant effects of Earobics® when compared to Lexia and the no intervention group on the DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency subtest. The WWC determined that both positive effects were large enough to be substantively important.
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 Intervention Rating Scheme).
8 The level of statistical significance was reported by the study authors or, where 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 Technical Details of WWC-Conducted Computations. In the case of Cognitive Concepts (2003), Rehmann (2005), and
Valliath (2002), no corrections for clustering or multiple comparisons were needed. In the case of Gale (2006), a correction for multiple comparisons was
needed, so the significance levels may differ from those reported in the original study.
9 Data for these three phonological awareness measures were received through communication with the study author.
10 The WWC did not use all eight measures in its analysis because two were outside the domain specified in the beginning reading protocol. See
Appendix A1.4.
|Institute of Education Sciences
