References

Studies that fall outside the Beginning Reading protocol or do not meet evidence standards:

Barnes, S. (2007). The effects of curriculum structure on the achievement of grade 3 and grade 5 mobile students as measured by the Maryland school assessment. Unpublished dissertation, Duquesne University: Pittsburgh, PA. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

EDSTAR. (2002). Analysis of the effects of using Houghton Mifflin Reading programs on reading test scores in Chicago Public Schools. Raleigh, NC: EDSTAR Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 1-29. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & Varma, S. (2005). Reading First year 3 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems. The study did not meet WWC evidence standards—the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention–the intervention was combined with another intervention.

Additional Sources:
Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2006). Reading First year 4 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.
Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2008). Reading First year 5 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.

Levin, J., Haertel, E., Kirst, M., & Williams, T. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? Additional findings: Elementary school curriculum program and API: A more detailed examination. Mountain View, CA: Edsource. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Ryder, R. J., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects from first through third grades. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 180-191. The study did 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.

Swartz, J. & Johnston, K. (2003). Efficacy study of Houghton Mifflin Reading: A legacy of literacy, final report. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. The study did not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Top