References

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

Adams, M. J., Bereiter, C., McKeough, A., Case, R., Roit, M., Hirschberg, J., et al. (2002). Open Court Reading. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Carpenter, Z. A. (2005). Effects of Fast ForWord on reading comprehension for elementary students. Cheney, WA: Eastern Washington University. 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.

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. Retrieved from http://www.eddata.com/resources/publications/RF_Evaluation_
2004-2005.pdf. 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.

Additional Sources:
Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2006). Reading First year 4 evaluation report. Retrieved from http://www.eddata.com/resources/publications/RF_ Evaluation_2005-2006.pdf.
Haager, D., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2008). Reading First year 5 evaluation report. Retrieved from http://www.eddata.com/resources/publications/RF_Evaluation_ 2006-2007.pdf.

Jordan, N. L. (2005). Basal readers and reading as socialization: What are children learning? Language Arts, 82(3), 204-213. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

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.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Canopy Oaks Elementary, Tallahassee, FL). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Curtis Creek School District, Sonora, CA). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Fort Worth Independent School District, Fort Worth, TX). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Hartsfield Elementary School, Tallahassee, FL). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Kelso Elementary School, Inglewood, CA). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Lemoore Union Elementary School District, Lemoore, CA). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Public School 161, Crown Heights, Brooklyn, NY). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with Open Court Reading. New York: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464189) (Study: Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, CA). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Miners, Z. (2007). Open Court Reading program: A Florida district NCLB success. District Administration, 43(3), 24-24. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

O’Brien, D. M., & Ware, A. M. (2002, March). Implementing research-based reading programs in the Fort Worth Independent School District. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(2), 167–195. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Skindrud, K., & Gersten, R. (2006). An evaluation of two contrasting approaches for improving reading achievement in a large urban district. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 389-407. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2005). California elementary school closes achievement gap with SRA reading programs. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/RioAltura_DI.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2005). Combination of Open Court Reading and Direct Instruction equal consistently high reading scores. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/Sneads_DI_05.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2005). Fort Worth school district builds reading achievement, especially among economically disadvantaged students. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/fort_worth_di1.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2005). Results with Open Court Reading. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/OCR/Research/SRA_OCR-Results.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2006). Missouri elementary school closes achievement gap using SRA reading programs. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/Monett_DI.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2006). Nebraska Reading First school reaches states highest scores with SRA reading programs. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/Sunrise_DI_FNL.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2007). SRA/McGraw-Hill’s reading programs bring increases in Baltimore’s scores. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/Baltimore_DI_07.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2007). State reading scores improve at California elementary, Open Court Reading and REACH lead the way. Retrieved from https://www.sraonline.com/download/DI/EfficacyReports/Hemet_DI.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Wehby, J. H., Falk, K. B., Barton-Arwood, S., Lane, K. L., & Cooley, C. (2003). The impact of comprehensive reading instruction on the academic and social behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 225. The study is not included because it uses a design for which the WWC is currently developing standards.

Wilson, P., Martens, P., & Arya, P. (2005). Accountability for reading and readers: What the numbers don’t tell. Reading Teacher, 58(7), 622-631. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Wiltz, N., & Wilson, G. P. (2006). An inquiry into children’s reading in one urban school using SRA Reading Mastery (Direct Instruction). Journal of Literacy Research, 37(4), 493-528. 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.

Top