(2008). National Center for Education Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502153
Reviewed: October 2008
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Ready, Set, Leap!®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Shape Composition |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Applied Problems subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Language Development - Primary III (TOLD-PIII): Grammatic Understanding subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP): Elision subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Spelling subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope approach |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 79% |
| Hispanic | 20% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 80% |
The study took place in 21 full-day preschools in an urban area of New Jersey. All of the preschools in the study had National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) certification.
Thirty-nine classrooms from 21 schools were randomly assigned either to an intervention (21 classrooms from 11 schools) or a comparison (18 classrooms from 10 schools) group. Before random assignment, schools that had similar characteristics, such as teachers’ experience, school location, or a score on a state report card, were placed in blocks. Random assignment then was conducted within each block. The study began with 286 preschool children (149 in the intervention group and 137 in the comparison group). The response rate was 96% in the fall and 92% in the spring of the prekindergarten year. At pretest, the mean age of the children in the intervention group was 4.5 years; 52% were male; 82% were African-American and 18% Hispanic. At pretest, the mean age of the children in the comparison group was 4.5 years; 57% were male; 75% were African-American and 23% Hispanic. Differences between the intervention and comparison groups on these characteristics were not statistically significant.
Ready, Set, Leap!® is a prekindergarten curriculum that focuses on developing early reading skills, such as phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, and letter–sound correspondence. The curriculum is structured around 9 thematic units, each with 120 lessons plans for large- and small-group instruction. The research team used multiple sources to assess implementation of the curriculum, including coaching visits, site coordinator ratings, and class observations. This information was used to create a four-point scale of fidelity from “Not at all” (0) to “High” (3). The treatment classrooms received an average rating of 1.9.
The comparison classrooms used what the study authors described as a “High/Scope approach.” According to the developer’s website (www.highscope.org), High/Scope is a flexible framework for setting up and managing a preschool classroom. “Active learning” is a central tenet of the approach in which children are encouraged to learn through direct, hands-on experiences. Adults support that learning through scaffolding and interaction, using techniques such as focusing on children’s strengths and problem solving. Implementation of the comparison curriculum was evaluated using the same procedures described for the intervention classrooms. The comparison classrooms received an average rating of 2.0 (out of 3).
The primary outcome domains assessed were the children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and math. Oral language was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III) and the Test of Language Development-Primary III (TOLD-P:3) Grammatic Understanding subtest. Print knowledge was assessed with the Test of Early Reading Ability-III (TERA-3), Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) Letter-Word Identification subtest, and the WJ III Spelling subtest. Phonological processing was assessed with the Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP) Elision subtest. Math was assessed with the WJ III Applied Problems subtest, the Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A), and the Building Blocks, Shape Composition task. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.1-2.5.
The intervention group teachers received four full days of training on the Ready, Set, Leap!® curriculum over the course of the year.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube