|
|
Baenen, N., Bernhole, A., Dulaney, C., & Banks, K. (1997). Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(2), 161.
Additional sources:
Donley, J., Baenen, N., & Hundley, S. (1993). A study of the long-term effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Wake County Public School System. (1995). Evaluation Report: WCPSS Reading Recovery 1990–94. E&R Report No. 95.09A. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake County Public School System.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Additional sources:
Pinnell, G. S. (1988). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading (Technical Report No. 417). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Pinnell, G. S. (1989a). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989b). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 237–259). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pinnell, G. S., Short, K. G., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus, OH Year 1: 1985–1986. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8–39.
Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257–267.
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112–126.
Additional source:
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). Phonological recoding skills in beginning reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 161–179.
Acalin, T. A. (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project READ. Masters Abstracts International, 33(06), 1660. (UMI No. 1361908) This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2003). Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (Vol. 2, pp. 115-132). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Askew, B. J., & Frasier, D. F. (1997). Sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the cognitive behaviors of second grade children and the perceptions of their teachers. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 18–38). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Bermel, S. (1987). Language development component, CLEAR–Reading Recovery program 1985–86. Final evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED281157) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Briggs, C., & Young, B. K. (2003). Does Reading Recovery work in Kansas? A retrospective longitudinal study of sustained effects. Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1), 59–64. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Brown, K. L. (1999). The impact of Reading Recovery intervention on the reading achievement of selected second grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(08), 2636A. (UMI No. 3023650) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. (1999). Reading Recovery effectiveness: A five-year success story in San Luis Costal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum, 17(1), 3–12. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Bufalino, J. M. (1993). The sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the reading comprehension of second graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11), 145A. (UMI No. 9407866) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Burroughs-Lange, S. (2006). Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every child a reader 2005–2006. University of London: Institute of Education. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the estimates of effects did not account for differences in pre-intervention characteristics while using a quasi-experimental design.
Additional sources:
Burroughs-Lange, S. (2008). Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London schools: A Reading Recovery follow-up study. Retrieved from http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=9263.Burroughs-Lange, S., & Douëtil, J. (2007). Literacy progress of young children from poor urban settings: A Reading Recovery comparison study. Literacy, 12(1), 19–46.
Every Child a Reader. (2006). Every child a reader: The results of the first year... Retrieved from http://www.everychildareader.org/pubs/first_year_final.pdf.
Every Child a Reader. (2007). Every child a reader: The results of the second year... Retrieved from http://www.everychildareader.org/pubs/second_year.pdf.
Gross, J. (2006). Every child a reader. Literacy Today, 49, 10–11.
Center, Y., Freeman, L., & Robertson, G. (2001). The relative effect of a code-oriented and a meaning-oriented early literacy program on regular and low progress Australian students in year 1 classrooms which implement Reading Recovery. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(2), 207–232. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 240–263. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Chapman, J., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological-processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(2), 141–176. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Christman, M. S. (2003). An examination of the effects and costs of the Reading Recovery program in an urban school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(08), 2824A. (UMI No. 3102259) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Collins, E. W. (2000). The immediate and sustained effects of the Reading Recovery program on grade one and grade four at-risk students: A longitudinal study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(05), 1784A. (UMI No. 9971239) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Collins, V. K. (1994). Automaticity in information processing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(9), 2708A. (UMI No. 9502838) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Concha, J. S. (2005). Reading Recovery children and early literacy development: Investigation into phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, oral reading processing, and reading comprehension processing. University of Maryland, College Park: Department of Curriculum and Instruction. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Curtin, J. (1993). The effectiveness of the Reading Recovery Program on reading achievement. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363863) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
D’Agostino, J. V., & Murphy, J. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
DeFord, D. E. (1997). Early writing: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 148–172). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Department of Evaluation Services. (1995). Compensatory Education (CE) product evaluation: Elementary and secondary programs 1994–95. Saginaw, MI: Saginaw Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391853) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the estimates of effects did not account for differences in pre-intervention characteristics while using a quasi-experimental design.
Additional source:
Department of Evaluation Services. (1992). Compensatory education product evaluation: Elementary and secondary programs 1991–1992. Saginaw, MI: Saginaw Public Schools, Michigan Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350370)
Dorn, L., & Allen, A. (1995). Helping low-achieving first-grade readers: A program combining Reading Recovery tutoring and small-group instruction. Journal of Reading Recovery, 13(3), 16–24. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Douëtil, J. (2004). The long term effects of Reading Recovery on national curriculum tests at end of key stages 1 and 2. London: Institute of Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Dunkeld, C. (1990). Gaining experience with Reading Recovery: A pilot project between Portland Public Schools and Portland State University. Portland, OR: Portland State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321246) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was not implemented as designed.
Escamilla, K. (1997). Descrubriendo la Lectura: An early intervention literacy program in Spanish. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 109–121). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.
Escamilla, K., Loera, M., Ruiz, O., & Rodriguez, Y. (2003). An examination of sustaining effects in Descubriendo la Lectura programs. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (Vol. 2, pp. 193–214). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Evans, T. L. P. (1996). "I can read deze books!": A qualitative comparison of the Reading Recovery program and a small group reading intervention. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(02), 565A. (UMI No. 9619200) The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Fraser, H., MacDougall, A., Pirrie, A., & Croxford, L. (2001). National evaluation of the early intervention program. KPMG and The University of Edinburgh. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Fullerton, S. K., & DeFord, D. E. (2001). Conversations before writing during Reading Recovery lessons: Negotiations or tug of war? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Chicago. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Gilmer, V. B. (2003). Sustained success of former Reading Recovery students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(02), 444A. (UMI No. 3081577) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., & Rodgers, E. M. (2004). Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2002–2003. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Rodgers, E., & Fullerton, S. K. (2003). Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2001–2002. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.
Harrison, L. (2002). A study on the complementary effects of Reading Recovery and small group instruction for reversing reading failure. Research Summary No 102–103. Little Rock: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Hovest, C. M. (2000). An examination of the achievement of phonological skills for three groups participating in an early intervention program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08), 3107A. (UMI No. 9982583) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
How effective is Reading Recovery? (2006). Literacy Today (46), 30–31. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Hurry, J., & Sylva, K. (2007). Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 227–248. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 456–472. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was not implemented as designed.
Johnson, J. A. (1996). Reading Recovery: Early intervention. Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398564) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Kahl, K. M. (2005). Comparing outcomes of two early reading interventions: Reading Recovery and direct instruction. Unpublished thesis, Widener University. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
LaFave, C. E. (1995). Impact of Reading Recovery on phonemic awareness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(07), 2621A. (UMI No. 9540370) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Leitner, D. (1990). Portland Reading Recovery program 1989–90 evaluation report. Year 1. Portland, OR: Portland Public Schools, Oregon Research and Evaluation Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326839) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Litt, D. G. (2003). An exploration of the double-deficit hypothesis in the Reading Recovery population. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06), 2028A. (UMI No. 3094512) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Lose, M. K., Schmitt, M. C., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Jones, N., Honchell, B., & Askew, B. J. (2007). Reading Recovery and IDEA legislation: Early intervening services (EIS) and response to intervention (RTI). The Journal of Reading Recovery, 6(2), 42–47. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lyons, C. (1989). Reading Recovery: A preventative for mislabeling young "at-risk" learners. Urban Education, 24(2), 125–139. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Marina, B., & Gilman, D. A. (2003). Is Reading Recovery worth the cost? Vigo County, IN: Vigo County School Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473957) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Marvin, C. A., & Gaffney, J. S. (2003). The effects of Reading Recovery on children's home literacy experiences. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (Vol. 2, pp. 231–256). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
McDowall, S., Boyd, S., Hodgen, E., & van Vliet, T. (2005). Reading Recovery in New Zealand: Uptake, implementation, and outcomes, especially in relation to Mäori and Pasifika students. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
McIntyre, E., Jones, D., Powers, S., Newsome, F., Petrosko, J., Powell, R., et al. (2005). Supplemental instruction in early reading: Does it matter for struggling readers? The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 99–107. 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.
McManus, D. A. (1999). A modified Reading Recovery program can be successful in a second grade Title I reading program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(10), 3597A. (UMI No. 9947733) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Miller, S. D. (2003). Partners-in-Reading: Using classroom assistants to provide tutorial assistance to struggling first-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(3), 333–349. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the overall attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.
Moore, M., & Wade, B. (1998). Reading Recovery: Its effectiveness in the long term. Support for Learning, 13(3), 123–128. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Murphy, J. A. (2003). An application of growth curve analysis: The evaluation of a reading intervention program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12), 4358A. (UMI No. 3114448) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (2003). The success of Reading Recovery for English language learners and Descubriendo la Lectura for bilingual students in California. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (Vol. 2, pp. 257–280). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.
O'Connor, E. A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39(6), 635–646. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Pinnell, G. S. (1997). An inquiry-based model for educating teachers of literacy. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 6–17). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Plewis, I. (2000). Evaluating educational interventions using multilevel growth curves: The case of Reading Recovery. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6(1), 83–101. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Pollock, J. S. (1993). Final evaluation report: Reading Recovery program 1991–92. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Program Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358440) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Pollock, J. S. (with Morgan, K. L., Williams, E. J., & Amorose, R. A.). (1991). Reading Recovery program 1990–91. Final Evaluation report. Elementary and Secondary Education Act—Chapter 1. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Program Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED343108) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Pollock, J. S., Williams, E. J., Morgan, K. L., & Amorose, R. A. (1990). Language development component compensatory language experiences and reading, CLEAR–Reading Recovery program, 1989–90. Final Evaluation Report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327821) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Potter, T. (2004). Reading Recovery evaluation. Madison, WI: Planning, Research and Evaluation, Madison Metropolitan School District. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., Lloyd, J. W., Nowak, R., & Ryals, J. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction on decoding of struggling first grade students: A data-based case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 28(1), 63–76. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Quay, L. C., Steele, D. C., Johnson, C. I., & Hortman, W. (2001). Children's achievement and personal and social development in a first-year Reading Recovery program with teachers in training. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5(2), 7–25. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the estimates of effects do not account for differences in pre-intervention characteristics while using a quasi-experimental design.
Ramaswami, S. (1994). The differential impact of Reading Recovery on achievement of first graders in the Newark School District, 1991–1993. Newark, NJ: Newark Board of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Testing. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Reading Recovery National Network. (2005). Reading Recovery Annual Report for UK and Ireland 2004–2005. University of London: Institute of Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery 20 years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(2), 199–223. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Rhodes, J. A. (1998). A comparison of the effects of individualized writing instruction with and without phonemic segmentation on the standard spelling performance of at-risk first graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07), 2426A. (UMI No. 9839187) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention— the intervention was not implemented as designed.
Rodgers, E. M., Fullerton, S. K., & DeFord, D. E. (2001). What does it take to reform instructional practices? In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), Fiftieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 519–532). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Rodgers, E., & Gómez-Bellengé, F. X. (2006). Reading Recovery in Ohio: 2005–2006 state report (National Data Evaluation Center Tech. Rep. No. 2006-08). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, National Data Evaluation Center. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Rodgers, E., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., & Fullerton, S. K. (2003). Reading Recovery in Ohio: 2001–2002 state report (National Data Evaluation Center Tech. Rep. No. 2003-03). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Rodgers, E. M., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., & Schulz, M. M. (2005). Reading Recovery in Ohio: 2003–2004 state report (National Data Evaluation Center Tech. Rep. No. 2005-01). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Rodgers, E., Gómez-Bellengé, F., Wang, C., & Schulz, M. (2005). Predicting the literacy achievement of struggling readers: Does intervening early make a difference. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Roehrig, A. D., Pressley, M., & Sloup, M. (2001). Reading strategy instruction in regular primary-level classrooms by teachers trained in Reading Recovery. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(4), 323–348. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., & Smith, L. J. (1996). Evaluation of Title I reading programs: Amphitheater public schools—Year 1: 1995–1996. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Rowe, K. J. (1995). Factors affecting children’s progress in reading: Key findings from a longitudinal study. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 57–110. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Salinas, A., Williams, I., & Kohler, L. (1993). Reading Recovery program evaluation: Report 1992-93. McAllen, TX: McAllen Independent School District, Office of Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366938) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Schmitt, M. C. (2001). The development of children's strategic processing in Reading Recovery. Reading Psychology, 22, 129–151. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Schmitt, M. C. (2003). Metacognitive strategy knowledge: Comparison of former Reading Recovery children and their current classmates. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 7(1–2), 57–76. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. E. (2001). The impact of early intervention: Where are the children now? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Schotanus, H. (1991). Reading Recovery pilot project (Laws 1989: 301): Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363859) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Schotanus, H., Chase, C., & Fontaine, A. (1992). Reading Recovery program, implementation year two, school year 1991–1992. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363860) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Schotanus, H., Chase, C., Fontaine, A., & Tilton, S. (1993). Reading Recovery program implementation year three, school year 1992–1993. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364869) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Schotanus, H., Fontaine, A., Tilton, S., Westergren, G., & Anderson, A. (1996). Reading Recovery program implementation year six, school year 1995–96. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405573) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Schwartz, R. M. (in press). Reading Recovery research in North America. In B. Watson & B. J. Askew (Eds.), What is possible? Reading Recovery in an historical and international context: The legacy of Marie Clay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Scull, J. A., & Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Successful engagement in an early literacy intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(2), 123–150. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Shoulders, M. D. (2004). The long-term effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03), 836A. (UMI No. 3127549) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Simpkins, J. (1995). Longitudinal study of Reading Recovery: School years 1990–91 through 1993–94. Unpublished manuscript. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Simpson, S. H. (1997). A principal's perspective of the implementation of Reading Recovery in six metropolitan Nashville elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(08), 2948A. (UMI No. 9806596) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Slavin, R. E. (2005) Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk. Retreived from http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/slavin%203%2017%20final.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Smith, N. (1994). Reading Recovery data and observations from one Illinois site (Part II). Illinois Reading Council Journal, 22(3), 29–46. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Additional source:
Smith, N. (1994). Reading Recovery data and observations from one Illinois site (Part I). Illinois Reading Council Journal, 22(2), 7–27.
Smith, P. E. (1994). Reading Recovery and children with English as a second language. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 141–155. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Stahl, K. A. D., Stahl, S. A., & McKenna, M. C. (2003). The development of phonological awareness and orthographic processing in Reading Recovery. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery, (Vol. 2, pp. 99–114). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Swartz, S. L. (1999). California Early Literacy Learning and Reading Recovery: Two innovative programs for teaching children to read and write. Paper presented at the Claremont Reading Conference, Claremont, CA. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Thomas, P. M. (with Morgan, K. L., Amorose, R. A., & Williams, E. J.). (1989). Language development component, compensatory language experiences and reading: CLEAR–Reading Recovery program 1987–88. Final evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED313668) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Townsend, M. A. R., Townsend, J. E., & Seo, K. J. (2001). Children's motivation to read following Reading Recovery. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Chicago. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Wang, Y. L., & Johnstone, W. (1997). Evaluation of Reading Recovery program. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Weeks, D. (1992). A study of the implementation of Reading Recovery in Scarborough: 1990–1991. Masters Abstracts International, 3(03), 1005. (UMI No. MM74064) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the overall attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.
Wilkes Pendergrass, P. V. (2004). The short-term effects of Reading Recovery on children's reading development: Process and product. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(03), 823A. (UMI No. 3127551) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Wright, A. (1992). Evaluation of the first British Reading Recovery programme. British Educational Research Journal, 18(4), 351–368. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Yukish, J. F., & Fraas, J. W. (1997). Success of old order Amish children in a strategy-oriented program for children at-risk of failure in reading. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 39–51). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Zielinski, L. A. (1997). The long term effectiveness of Reading Recovery in a small, rural school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(01), 0077A. (UMI No. 9822883) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
None.
|Institute of Education Sciences
