|
|
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 all four domains. The findings below present the authors’ estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects of Lexia Reading on students.7
Alphabetics. 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. The outcomes of the Lexia Early Reading group were compared against those from two other groups: one receiving no supplemental instruction and one receiving Earobics®.
The first comparison was Lexia Early Reading versus no supplemental instruction. The author reported, and the WWC confirmed, positive and statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading for two DIBELS subtests: Initial Sounds Fluency (kindergarten) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (kindergarten). The author reported statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading versus no supplemental instruction in first grade for three DIBELS subtests (Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Nonsense Word Fluency). In WWC calculations, none of these effects were statistically significant, however, the WWC determined that the effects for all of the subtests were positive and large enough to be considered substantively important (that is, an effect size of at least 0.25)
The second comparison was Lexia Early Reading versus Earobics®. The author found no statistically significant effect on three of the four DIBELS subtests for either of the two grades. For first-grade students, the author reported a statistically significant difference on the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest. The WWC found that this effect was not statistically significant, however, the WWC determined that three of the negative 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, but was positive and large enough to be considered substantively important.
Macaruso and Walker (2008) reported positive but not statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading when compared to the no intervention group on four alphabetics outcomes, and a positive and statistically significant effect on one outcome (Oral Language Concepts). The WWC found that this effect was not statistically significant. However, the effects of the Gates-MacGintie subtests for Oral Language Concepts and Literacy Concepts were positive and large enough to be considered substantively important. The WWC found that the combined effect for alphabetics across all measures was not statistically significant nor was it large enough to be considered substantively important.
Fluency. Gale (2006) found positive but not statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading when compared to the no intervention group, and negative but not statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading when compared to Earobics® on the DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency subtest. The WWC determined that both the positive and negative effects were large enough to be substantively important.
The WWC found that the combined effect for fluency across both comparison groups was neither statistically significant nor substantively important.
Comprehension. Macaruso and Walker (2008) found a positive but not statistically significant effect of Lexia Early Reading when compared to the no intervention group on the Gates-MacGintie Reading Test, Level PR: Listening Comprehension subtest. The WWC determined that the positive effect was large enough to be substantively important.
General Reading Achievement. Macaruso, Hook, and McCabe (2006) found no statistically significant effect of Lexia Reading on the Gates-MacGintie Reading Test, Level Beginning Reading (BR): Form S, nor was the effect large enough to be considered substantively important by the WWC.
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).
7 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 Technical Details of WWC-Conducted Computations. In the cases of Gale (2006) and Macaruso and Walker (2008), a correction for multiple comparisons was needed, and in the cases of Macaruso, Hook, and McCabe (2006) and Macaruso and Walker (2008), a correction for clustering was needed, so the significance levels may differ from those reported in the original studies.
|Institute of Education Sciences
