Dianda, Marcella R.; Flaherty, John F. (1995). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED394327
Reviewed: March 2017
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 Success for All®.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Dianda, Marcella R.; Flaherty, John F. (1995). Report on Workstation Uses: Effects of Success for All on the Reading Achievement of First Graders in California Bilingual Programs.
Livingston, M., & Flaherty, J. (1997). Effects of Success for All on reading achievement in California schools. Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd.
Reviewed: August 2009
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 Success for All®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English-speaking kindergarten students: 1992 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English-speaking kindergarten students: 1992 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP): Passage comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English-speaking kindergarten: 1992 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Three Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP) subtests and Durrell reading subtest combined |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English-speaking kindergarten: 1993 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Three Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP) subtests and Durrell reading subtest combined |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English speaking kindergarten: 1994 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Three Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLBP) subtests and Durrell reading subtest combined |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
English-speaking kindergarten: 1992 cohort;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 10% | |
| Black | 6% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| White | 31% |
| Hispanic | 44% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 56% |
The analysis sample included seven elementary schools in California.
This study involved seven elementary schools in California in which the majority of students were English language learners. Six schools remained by the third year of program implementation. Students were grouped into four language categories and received instruction in English, Spanish, or “Sheltered English.” Only the English-speaking subsample was reviewed. The report includes three cohorts of students who began participating in the study as kindergarteners in 1992 (99 intervention and 120 comparison students), 1993 (105 intervention and 62 comparison students), or 1994 (94 intervention and 59 comparison students), for a total of 539 participants. For the effectiveness rating, the WWC used data that reflected students’ exposure to the intervention for the longest period of time, which varied for the different cohorts and domains. Exact attrition rates are not known for this study; however, the post-attrition intervention and comparison samples were equivalent for the English-speaking subgroup. In the overall sample, the percentage of students eligible for free lunch varied from 70% to 98% in intervention schools, and from 47% to 80% in comparison schools. The percentages of minority students were between 50% and 70% for each study condition.
Intervention students received the typical SFA ® curriculum, including the SFA ® reading curriculum, tutoring for students, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers.
Comparison schools continued using their regular, previously planned curriculum. Each comparison school was matched with an SFA ® school in the same district with students who had similar demographics and pretest scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test measure.
Three subtests of the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery were administered: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension. The authors presented findings from each Woodcock subtest separately and also pooled findings from the Woodcock Letter-Word Identification subtests (see Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
SFA ® teachers received three days of training during the summer and approximately eight days of on-site follow-up during the first implementation year. Success for All Foundation trainers visited classrooms, met with groups of teachers, looked at data on children’s progress, and provided feedback to school staff on implementation quality and outcomes. Specially trained certified teachers or qualified aides worked one-to-one with the students.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Dianda, Marcella R.; Flaherty, John F. (1995). Report on Workstation Uses: Effects of Success for All on the Reading Achievement of First Graders in California Bilingual Programs.
Livingston, M., & Flaherty, J. (1997). Effects of Success for All on reading achievement in California schools. Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(1), 41-76. (Study: California).
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of Success for All on the reading achievement of students acquiring English [California]. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 4(4), 393–416.
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