References

Meets WWC evidence standards

Huffstetter, M. (2005). The effects of an Internet-based program on the early reading and oral language skills of at-risk preschool students and their teachers’ perceptions of the program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa. (68813195)

Studies that fall outside the Early Childhood Education protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Budlong Elementary, Los Angeles Unified School District. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 3–6). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts (NCEE 2009-4041). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Additional source:
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., Murphy, R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., & Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Clarfield, J. (2006). Examining the efficacy of two computerized reading programs for kindergarten students at-risk for reading and behavior problems. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67, 05A. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Clarfield, J., & Stoner, G. (2005). The effects of computerized reading instruction on the academic performance of students identified with ADHD. School Psychology Review, 34(2), 246–254. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2003). Headsprout Early Reading™: Reliably teaching children to read. Behavioral Technology Today, 3, 7–20. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004). Selected for success: How Headsprout Reading Basics™ teaches beginning reading. In D. J. Moran, & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence-based educational methods (pp. 171–197). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Learners using Headsprout at home. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 11–12). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

NY students reading above grade level with Headsprout. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 7). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

PS 106, New York Public Schools. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 1–2). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Vail Unified School District, Vail, Arizona. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 8–9). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Woodcock Johnson Letter-Word Identification subtest pre- and posttest scores. (2007). Results count: Outcome data and case studies (pp. 10). Seattle, WA: Headsprout. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Studies with disposition pending

Layng, T. V. J., Twyman, J. S., & Stikeleather, G. (2004). Engineering discovery learning: The contingency adduction of some precursors of textual responding in a beginning reading program. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 20, 99–109. The study is not included because it uses a design for which the WWC is currently developing standards.