Foster, Kelli C.; And Others (1994). Journal of Research and Development in Education, v27 n2 p126-37. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ488776
Reviewed: September 2006
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 DaisyQuest.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (b) |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
5 years old;
|
22.40 |
19.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Screening Test of Phonological Awareness- Experimental Version (STOPA-E) |
DaisyQuest vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
5 years old;
|
18.50 |
12.40 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Children attended the Kinderland Center, a child-care facility in Orem, Utah.
Participants were 27 eligible students who were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n=12) and a control group (n=15). Before the study, a pool of more than 100 five-year-old children was given the PPVT-R and PAT (b). Children with PPVT-R standard scores less than 75 and children with PAT (b) scores greater than 20 were excluded from the study. The two groups of eligible students were not significantly different from one another in terms of age or scores on the two measures. The average age of children in the experimental group was five years five months and in the control group, five years three months. Although the children in this study were recruited from a preschool, they met age requirements of this review (average age was five years). No attrition occurred.
Intervention students participated in 20 DaisyQuest computer sessions of approximately 20–25 minutes each in quiet rooms where computer interaction could take place without interruption. Sessions were designed so that students could finish three levels of the program. If a child mastered all three levels before 20 sessions had occurred, training was discontinued. The version of DaisyQuest evaluated in this study contained six instructional activities.
The comparison group remained in their regular classroom, receiving their routine preschool instruction.
Subjects in both groups were given the Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) and Screening Test of Phonological Awareness-Experimental Version (STOPA-E) in a random order after all children in the experimental group had concluded training. The posttests were given approximately one month after the pretest (that is, the study lasted approximately one month). (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
No information was given about teacher training, because teachers did not deliver the intervention.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 DaisyQuest.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) (b) |
DaisyQuest vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
5 year olds;
|
22.40 |
19.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Screening Test of Phonological Awareness- Experimental Version (STOPA-E) |
DaisyQuest vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
5 year olds;
|
18.50 |
12.40 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Children attended the Kinderland Center, a child-care facility in Orem, Utah.
Participants were 27 eligible students who were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n=12) and a control group (n=15). Before the study, a pool of more than 100 five-year-old children was given the PPVT-R and PAT (b). Children with PPVT-R standard scores less than 75 and children with PAT (b) scores greater than 20 were excluded from the study. The two groups of eligible students were not significantly different from one another in terms of age or scores on the two measures. The average age of children in the experimental group was five years five months and in the control group, five years three months. Although the children in this study were recruited from a preschool, they met age requirements of this review (average age was five years). No attrition occurred.
Intervention students participated in 20 DaisyQuest computer sessions of approximately 20–25 minutes each in quiet rooms where computer interaction could take place without interruption. Sessions were designed so that students could finish three levels of the program. If a child mastered all three levels before 20 sessions had occurred, training was discontinued. The version of DaisyQuest evaluated in this study contained six instructional activities.
The comparison group remained in their regular classroom, receiving their routine preschool instruction.
Subjects in both groups were given the Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) and Screening Test of Phonological Awareness-Experimental Version (STOPA-E) in a random order after all children in the experimental group had concluded training. The posttests were given approximately one month after the pretest (that is, the study lasted approximately one month). (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
No information was given about teacher training, because teachers did not deliver the intervention.
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