Effects of prior attention training on child dyslexics’ response to composition instruction.
Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 243–260.
-
examining20Students, grades4-6
Read Naturally Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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 Read Naturally.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 Read Naturally.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Pay Attention! |
Midtest |
Grades 4, 5, 6;
|
7.70 |
8.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Pay Attention! |
Midtest |
Grades 4, 5, 6;
|
6.70 |
7.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT): Written Expression subtest |
Read Naturally vs. Pay Attention! |
Midtest |
Grades 4, 5, 6;
|
92.60 |
89.40 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 40%
Male: 60% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Washington
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with children from one parochial school in Washington State. The school serves children throughout the normal range of learning abilities, and teachers were trained to teach students with learning disabilities.
Study sample
The sample for this study included 20 English-speaking dyslexic children. The study’s criterion for dyslexia was a discrepancy of at least one standard deviation between a student’s Verbal Comprehension Index on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Second Edition) and his or her score on one or more measures of reading and writing. Children with diagnosed neurological or psychiatric disorders or Wechsler Verbal Communication indices below 88 were excluded from the study sample. The 20 children in the study had a mean Wechsler Verbal Communication Index of 106.7. Ten of the children were in the 4th grade, six were in the 5th grade, and four were in the 6th grade; 12 of the children were boys and 8 were girls. The 20 children were randomly assigned to one of two interventions: 10 children to Read Naturally ® and 10 children to Pay Attention! Pretest data were collected prior to the start of the interventions, and a first set of posttest data was collected after the completion of 10 sessions in Read Naturally ® or Pay Attention! At that point, students from the two groups were combined, and they participated in 10 more sessions with a third intervention (Writing Lessons with Attention Bridges), after which a second posttest was administered. As the focus of this report is Read Naturally ®, this review is based only on a comparison of pretest and first posttest data. There was no attrition of students between the pretest and first posttest.
Intervention Group
Children in the Read Naturally ® Masters Edition group participated in ten 25-minute individual sessions. This involved teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring to increase fluency in reading. The students chose a story, were asked to recall what they knew about the book topic, read the story aloud while the teacher identified missing or unknown words, and students marked a graph showing how many words were read in one minute. Student and teacher then read the story aloud together several times with the teacher modeling fluent reading. The student then practiced individually. In the final step, the student read aloud again for one minute and graphed the number of words read.
Comparison Group
Children in the Pay Attention! group participated in ten 25-minute individual sessions. Students practiced attention-focusing and executive functions using cognitive operations such as understanding of information and instructions they heard, switching tasks flexibly, and maintaining focus despite distractions. Materials included cards and tapes with spoken words and distracting sounds. Students received feedback on mistakes, and they charted their progress to track growth.
Outcome descriptions
The authors assessed students with a battery of tests at the pretest, first posttest, and second posttest time points. The domain of reading fluency was measured by administration of the Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate subtests of the Gray Oral Reading Test–III (GORT-III). The domain of writing was measured by administration of the Written Expression subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Second Edition). Other outcomes (executive functioning and handwriting) were reported in the study but were not included in this report because they were outside the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.
Support for implementation
Participants were instructed by the first or second author or a graduate student in school psychology who was supervised by those authors.
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).