Intervention: Waterford Early Reading Program™

Intervention: Waterford Early Reading Program™
July 16, 2007

References

Met WWC evidence standards with reservations

Hecht, S. A., & Close, L. (2002). Emergent literary skills and training time uniquely predict variability in responses to phonemic awareness training in disadvantaged kindergartners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82 (2), 93-115.

Additional citation for this study:
Hecht, S. A. (2000). Waterford Early Reading program in Ohio: An evaluation. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)

Did not meet WWC evidence screens

Alfaro, R. (1999). The technology-reading connection. Educational Workshop, 56 (6), 48-51. ⁸

Canedo, M., Smolen, L., & Pollard, J. (2000). A study of the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading Program: Final evaluation results 1997-98. Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Public Schools. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁹

Cassady, J. C., & Smith, L. L. (2003). The impact of a reading-focused integrated learning system on phonological awareness in kindergarten. Journal of Literacy Research, 35 (4), 947-964. ¹⁰

Cassady, J. C., & Smith, L. L. (2005). The impact of a structured integrated learning system on first grade students' reading gains. Reading and Writing Quarterl y, 21 (4), 361-376. ¹¹

Cope, R., & Cummings, J. (2001). Evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in Madisonville Consolidated Independent School District. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹²

Corbett, R. (2000). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in the Hillcrest Title I school in the Alpine School District. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Dunn, A. (1999). Evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in selected Utah public school for the 1997-98 school year. Salt Lake City, UT: Waterford Institute, Inc. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹¹

Electronic Education. (2002). Correlation. Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Heuston, D. (1996). Power tools. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (10), 706. ⁸

Hillsborough County Public Schools. (n. d.). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program Bryan Elementary Hillsborough County, Florida 1997-98 school year. Plant City, FL: Author. (Available from Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Jadali, F., & Wright, B. (n. d.). A study of the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading Program at Commons Lane Elementary School. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Kortz, W. J. (n. d.). An evaluation of Waterford Early Reading Program. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) (Study: Hempstead Independent School District, Hempstead, TX)⁸

Murray-Ward, M. (2000). El Centrito interim grant report for the period of July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 (Report No. 109). Thousand Oaks: California Lutheran University, Educational Research and Leadership Institute. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹³

Nagel, R. J. (1999). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in Pittsburgh, PA Public School District. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹⁴

Obeso-Bradley, C., & Miller, B. (1999, December). Early literacy and technology: The Waterford Early Reading Program (WERP) Level 2, Southside School District, Hollister, California. Paper presented at the annual education conference of the California School Boards Association, San Francisco, CA. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Paterson, W. A., Henry, J. J., O'Quin, K., Ceprano, M. A., & Blue, E. V. (2003). Investigating the effectiveness of an integrated learning system on early emergent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 (2), 172-206. ¹⁵

Pukas, B. (1998, May). A study of the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading Program: First-year evaluation reviews. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) (Study: New London Public Schools)¹⁰

Research, Assessment & Measurement, Inc. (1997). A study of the effectiveness of the Waterford Program at Glenridge Elementary School. Baltimore, MD: Author. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹⁰

Research, Assessment & Measurement, Inc. (1999). Evaluation of Waterford Early Reading Program Hacienda la Puente Unified School District Los Angeles County, CA Program Year 1997-98. Baltimore, MD: Author. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹²

Research, Assessment & Measurement, Inc. (2004). Evaluation of Waterford Early Reading Program: Collins Garden and Nelson Elementary Schools San Antonio, Texas. Baltimore, MD: Author. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Reynolds, C. (2001). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) (Study: Decatur School District 61)¹⁴

Roe, E. (2000). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in Scott Lane Elementary School Santa Clara Unified School District, Santa Clara, Calif., 1998-99 school year. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Shapley, K. S. (1997). Special report of the 1996-1997 Waterford Early Reading Program. Dallas, TX: Dallas Public Schools. ¹⁴

Additional citation for this study:
Waterford Institute, Inc. (1998). A preliminary report of the 1996-97 test results from elementary schools in the Dallas ISD on the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading Program. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)

Tracey, D. H. (n. d.). The Waterford Early Reading Program: Research orientation, studies, and findings: Executive summary. Available from the Waterford Institute Web site: http://www.waterford.org/corporate_pages/Rc2000.pdf ⁸

Walberg, H. J. (2001). Final evaluation of the reading initiative (Report to the J. A. & Kathryn Albertson Foundation Board of Directors). Available from the Waterford Institute Web site: http://www.waterford.org/corporate_pages/IdahoStudy.pdf ⁸

Washington, S. T. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of the implementation of the Waterford Early Reading Program, a computer-based instruction program: A case study of the evidence from teachers' interviews and students' achievement data in selective Pennsylvania urban elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (07), 2341A. (UMI No. 3099994)⁹

Waterford Institute, Inc. (1996). Preliminary research: Waterford Institute's Early Reading Program - Utah and New York schools. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Waterford Institute, Inc. (1998a). A study of the correlation between test gains and time spend using the Waterford Early Reading Program. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Waterford Institute, Inc. (1998b). Preliminary research data on the effect of the Waterford early reading program based on daily use of computer materials for 15 minutes. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101) (Study: Provo, Utah and New York City)⁸

Waterford Institute, Inc. (1998c). Waterford Early Reading Program (Level 1) - Hillcrest Elementary School preliminary study. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Waterford Institute, Inc. (2000). Evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program Level 1 Norwalk Public Schools: Norwalk, CT 1998-99 school year. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹⁰

Waterford Institute, Inc. (2002). Los Angeles Unified School District Waterford Early Reading Program initial implementation findings. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Waterford Institute, Inc. (2004). A study of the effectiveness of the Waterford Early Reading Program in academic alliance and intensive academic support classrooms in the Los Angeles Unified School District. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)¹⁶

Waterford Institute, Inc. (n. d.). Waterford Early Reading Program implementation results 1996-97: Duncanville I. S. D. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)⁸

Young, J. W., & Tracey, D. H. (2004). An evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program Newark, New Jersey 1997-98 school year. Sandy, UT: Waterford Institute, Inc. ¹⁷

⁸ Does not use a strong causal design: this study did not use a comparison group.
⁹ Complete data are not reported: the WWC could not compute effect sizes because complete study details were not reported.
¹⁰ Does not use a strong causal design: there was only one intervention and one comparison unit, so the analysis could not separate the effects of the intervention from other factors.
¹¹ Does not use a strong causal design: a historical cohort was used as the comparison group. WWC conventions allow for historical control cohorts in studies that have a broad unit of analysis (school or higher). This study analyzed at the student level and therefore does not fulfill the WWC requirement.
¹² Incomparable groups: this study was a quasi-experimental design that used achievement pretests but it did not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention.
¹³ The sample is not appropriate to this review: the parameters for this WWC review specified that students should be in grades kindergarten through third grade during the time of the intervention; this study did not focus on the targeted grades.
¹⁴ Does not use a strong causal design: this study was a quasi-experimental design but did not use achievement pretests to establish that the comparison group was equivalent to the intervention group at baseline.
¹⁵ Does not use a strong causal design: this study was a quasi-experimental design but did not provide enough information to establish that the comparison group and the intervention group were composed of comparable students.
¹⁶ Confound: this study included Waterford but combined it with another intervention so the analysis could not separate the effects of the intervention from other factors.
¹⁷ Complete data are not reported: the WWC could not evaluate the design because complete data were not reported. Attempts to contact the authors for more information were unsuccessful.

Top

What Works Clearinghouse

References

Met WWC evidence standards with reservations

Did not meet WWC evidence screens

What Works Clearinghouse Headlines