Improved early reading skills by students in three districts who used Fast ForWord® to Reading 1.
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(1), 1-5.
-
examining197Students, grades1-2
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- 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 Fast ForWord®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA): Phonological Awareness subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
53.70 |
46.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA): Letter Sounds subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
42.70 |
38.90 |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
Rural, Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in three schools located in different districts and states. One school was described as being located in a rural district and another in an urban district. The third school was located in the Springfield City School District, Ohio.
Study sample
During the spring of the 2004–05 school year, 158 first-grade students and 50 second-grade students from three different schools participated in the study. At one school, students from both grades participated, whereas only first-grade students participated at the other two schools. Using random assignment within schools and grades, 103 low-achieving students were assigned to the Fast ForWord® group (78 first-grade students and 25 second-grade students), and 105 students served as a comparison group (80 first-grade students and 25 second-grade students). Four students (two intervention and two comparison) who were older than age 9 at one or both testing times were removed from the analysis sample because they were too old for the norms of the Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA). Additionally, three intervention students and four comparison students moved during the study. Therefore, the analysis sample included 197 students: 75 first-grade students and 23 second-grade students in the intervention group, and 78 first-grade students and 21 second-grade students in the comparison group. Seven study participants (one intervention student and six comparison students) had used the Fast ForWord® Basics product before participating in the study. Results for a subsample of 93 students in the Springfield City School District were also reported in a separate manuscript (Scientific Learning Corporation, 2005d) and can be viewed in Appendix D.1.
Intervention Group
All students in the Fast ForWord® group used the Fast ForWord® to Reading 1 product, a computer-based product designed using first-grade curriculum standards. The Fast ForWord® to Reading 1 protocol called for students to use the product for 48 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 8–12 weeks. Students were pulled out of class to use the program in a computer lab, where two paraprofessionals monitored the students but did not assist with the content except to give instructions.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group took part in the regular school curriculum.
Outcome descriptions
The Phonological Awareness and Letter-Sounds subtests of the Early Elementary version of the TOPA were used for both the pretest and posttest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Teachers and the paraprofessionals who were monitoring the computer labs were given background information on how phonemic awareness and the acoustic properties of speech can impact development of language and reading skills. They were also trained to implement the program, including approaches for using Progress Tracker, the program’s reporting system, to monitor student performance. Teachers were also trained to assess potential participants for the study and to assess student outcomes.
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2010
- 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 Fast ForWord®.
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.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).