The effect of computer-delivered phonological awareness training on the early literacy skills of students identified as at-risk for reading failure.
Gale, D. (2006). Retrieved May, 2008 from the University of South Florida website: http://purl.fcla.edu/usf/dc/et/SFE0001531.
-
examining26Students, gradesK-1
Lexia Reading Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2009
- 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 Lexia Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
1.31 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
10.07 |
5.21 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
40.87 |
26.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
48.11 |
38.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
37.66 |
31.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
16.92 |
13.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
1.31 |
1.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
48.11 |
50.26 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
18.31 |
21.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
40.87 |
47.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
10.07 |
13.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
37.66 |
47.75 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
21.31 |
13.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. Earobics |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
21.31 |
27.35 |
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: 42%
Male: 58% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race Asian 25% Black 6% White 30% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Not Hispanic or Latino 63%
Earobics® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2009
- 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 Earobics®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
1.31 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
13.72 |
5.21 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
47.75 |
31.02 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
47.72 |
26.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
50.26 |
38.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
47.75 |
37.66 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
13.72 |
10.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
19.69 |
13.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
47.72 |
40.87 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
21.08 |
17.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
50.26 |
48.11 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
1.31 |
1.31 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
27.35 |
13.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Earobics® vs. Lexia Early Reading |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
27.35 |
21.31 |
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: 42%
Male: 58% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race Asian 9% Black 6% White 47% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Not Hispanic or Latino 63%
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).