Appendix A1 Study characteristics: Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer, 1991 (randomized controlled trial)
| Characteristic | Description |
|---|---|
| Study citation | Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., Short, R., & Shearer, B. (1991). Early Intervention in Reading: Preventing reading failure among low-achieving first grade students. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs. |
| Participants | Twelve first grade teachers from two schools were randomly assigned either to the intervention or to a control group (six teachers were assigned to EIR® and six teachers were assigned to the comparison group). In each classroom, five or six of the lowest-scoring students participated in the study. Students were identified initially by teacher recommendations based on reading test scores and confirmed through testing by study assistants using knowledge of consonant sounds; reading of sight words on the Dolch preprimer list; and the Burns-Roe Informal Reading Inventory, an auditory phonemic segmentation and blending test. Thirty-one low-achieving students from six EIR® classes and 28 students from six comparison classes participated in the study (there were five or six students in each class, but only three low-achieving students in one of the comparison classrooms). The district reports 20% of students receive free or reduced price lunch and 10% are minority students, but no specific demographic information was given about the study participants. Twenty-nine of the original 31 students in the treatment group remained throughout the study. All of the 28 comparison group students remained in the study.1 |
| Setting | The study took place in one suburban district in a metropolitan area in the Midwest. |
| Intervention | The program involved pulling aside the lowest-achieving students in each class to work as a group with the teacher. The program was implemented in three-day cycles from October to April of the school year. On day one, the teacher read a picture book (this part of the intervention occurred with the entire class). The teacher then taught the intervention students to segment words and blend phonemes into words. On days two and three, the intervention students read a story summary with minimal assistance. They also wrote one sentence a day that was related to the story with the teacher’s help. In addition to the 15–20 minutes that students worked with teachers each day, children worked individually (for 5 minutes) or in pairs (for 10 minutes) with a trained aide or project assistant. Running records were taken by the teacher or aide weekly to assess students’ progress. In this study, the project assistants, who were graduate students from a local university, spent time listening to intervention students read individually and provided teachers with feedback on the program. |
| Comparison | Students in the comparison classes participated in their regular reading instruction, supplemented with additional instruction from teachers and reading specialists. Some students received 30-minute pull-out sessions, whereas others were aided by special reading teachers within their own classes. |
| Primary outcomes and measurement | For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered a vowel sounds test, a test of segmentation and blending, and the Gates-MacGinitie reading test. Two additional tests, the Burns-Roe Informal Reading Inventory and the percentage of children reading a 150-word selection at the first grade level, were used in the study but have not been included in this review.2 For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–2.2. |
| Staff/teacher training | Intervention teachers attended an all-day workshop the summer before implementation. Three afternoon meetings were also held to support implementation. Project assistants (graduate students) observed and assisted (listening to program students read aloud) in intervention classes. These assistants were in program classes about 90 minutes per week. Assistants gave feedback and suggestions for improvement to program teachers. |
| 1 Outcome tests were conducted over two days; thus, the total number of students in the analysis samples varies depending on the measure assessed and student absences each day. 2 The administration of the tests involved substantial reading and interaction between students and testers, who served as assistants in the intervention classrooms. The WWC eliminated these tests from consideration in the review because students in the intervention group had a preexisting relationship with testers, which created unequal testing conditions across the intervention and comparison groups. |
|
Appendix A2.1 Outcome measures in the alphabetics domain
| Outcome measure | Description |
|---|---|
| Phonological awareness | |
| Segmentation and blending | An 18-item version of a segmentation (six items) and blending (six items) test adapted from Taylor and Pearson (as cited in Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer, 1991). At posttest, children were asked to say each sound in a three- to four-letter word, and then blend the sounds together. Twelve of the 18 words were on the pretest, and the other six were new. |
| Phonics | |
| Vowel sounds | A test measuring students’ knowledge of letter sounds for 15 pairs of vowels. The same test was given at pre- and posttest (as cited in Taylor et al., 1991). |
Appendix A2.2 Outcome measures FOR the comprehension domain
| Outcome measure | Description |
|---|---|
| Gates-MacGinitie reading test | A standardized test of reading readiness; form R was given as the pretest and Level A as the posttest (as cited in Taylor et al., 1991). |
Appendix A3.1 Summary of study findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain1
| Authors' findings from the study | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean outcome (standard deviation)2 | WWC calculations | |||||||
| Outcome measure | Study sample | Sample size (classes/students) | EIR® group | Comparison group | Mean difference3 (EIR® – comparison) | Effect size4 | Statistical significance5 (at α= 0.05) |
Improvement index6 |
| Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer, 1991 (randomized controlled trial)7 | ||||||||
| Construct: Phonological awareness | ||||||||
| Segmentation and blending | Grade 1 | 12/56 | 14.30 (4.09) | 10.41 (5.41) | 3.89 | 0.80 | Statistically significant | +29 |
| Construct: Phonics | ||||||||
| Vowel sounds | Grade 1 | 12/56 | 10.62 (3.18) | 6.44 (2.72) | 4.18 | 1.39 | Statistically significant | +42 |
| Domain average for aphabetics (Taylor et al., 1991)8 | 1.10 | Statistically significant | +36 | |||||
1 This appendix reports findings considered for the effectiveness rating and the average improvement indices for the alphabetics domain. |
||||||||
Appendix A3.2 Summary of study findings included in the rating for the comprehension domain1
| Authors' findings from the study | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean outcome (standard deviation)2 | WWC calculations | |||||||
| Outcome measure | Study sample | Sample size (classes/students) | EIR® group | Comparison group | Mean difference3 (EIR® – comparison) | Effect size4 | Statistical significance5 (at α= 0.05) |
Improvement index6 |
Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer, 1991 (randomized controlled trial)7 |
||||||||
| Gates-MacGinitie reading test | Grade 1 | 12/57 | 20.76 (8.03) | 17.14 (6.97) | 3.62 | 0.47 | ns | +18 |
| Domain average for comprehension (Taylor et al., 1991)8 | 0.47 | ns | +18 | |||||
|
ns = not statistically significant 1 This appendix reports findings considered for the effectiveness rating and the average improvement indices for the comprehension domain. |
||||||||
Appendix A4.1 EIR® rating for the alphabetics domain
The WWC rates an intervention’s effects for a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative.1
For the outcome domain of alphabetics, the WWC rated EIR® as having potentially positive effects. The remaining ratings (mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, and negative effects) were not considered, as EIR® was assigned the highest applicable rating.
| Rating received |
|---|
|
Potentially positive effects: Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
| Other ratings considered |
|
Positive effects: Strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
| 1For rating purposes, the WWC considers the statistical significance of individual outcomes and the domain-level effect. The WWC also considers the size of the domain-level effect for ratings of potentially positive or potentially negative effects. For a complete description, see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme. |
Appendix A4.2 EIR® rating for the comprehension domain
The WWC rates an intervention’s effects for a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative.1
For the outcome domain of comprehension, the WWC rated EIR® as having potentially positive effects. The remaining ratings (mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, and negative) were not considered, as EIR® was assigned the highest applicable rating.
| Rating received |
|---|
|
Potentially positive effects: Evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
| Other ratings considered |
|
Positive effects: Strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.
|
| 1 For rating purposes, the WWC considers the statistical significance of individual outcomes and the domain-level effect. The WWC also considers the size of the domain-level effect for ratings of potentially positive or potentially negative effects. For a complete description, see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme. |
Appendix A5 Extent of evidence by domain
| Sample size | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome domain | Number of studies | Schools | Studies | Extent of evidence1 |
| Alphabetics | 1 | 2 | 56 | Small |
| Fluency | 0 | na | na | na |
| Comprehension | 1 | 2 | 57 | Small |
| General reading achievement | 0 | na | na | na |
|
na = not applicable/not studied 1 A rating of "medium to large" requires at least two studies and two schools across studies in one domain and a total sample size across studies of at least 350 students or 14 classrooms. Otherwise, the rating is "small." |
||||
|Institute of Education Sciences
