Relative Effectiveness of Reading Practice or Word-Level Instruction in Supplemental Tutoring: How Text Matters
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A.; Peyton, Julia A. (2005). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v38 n4 p364. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ695628
-
examining57Students, grade1
Sound Partners Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2010
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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 Sound Partners.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
110.10 |
96.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
99.40 |
86.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
104.20 |
93.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
91.60 |
85.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
93.60 |
88.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
98.80 |
92.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Reading Accuracy |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
0.78 |
0.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passage Reading Rate |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Fall to Spring |
Grade 1;
|
31.10 |
23.40 |
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.
-
42% English language learners -
Female: 42%
Male: 58% -
Urban
-
- 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
West
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 26% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
Study Details
Setting
The study includes 12 schools from a large, urban school district in the northwestern United States.
Study sample
This sample was drawn from 12 participating schools, six of which were assigned as treatment sites, five as control sites, and one that included both treatment and control students. During the first month of first grade, 22 teachers referred students they judged to be at risk for reading; in all, 99 first-graders met the criteria for participation, which included (1) parental consent, (2) not repeating first grade, and (3) scoring below the 25th percentile on the WRAT-R. Students at treatment sites were assigned to tutors based on schedules and availability. Of the 78 students completing all phases of the study, the authors chose 57 to be included in the analyses based on the comparability of their pretest scores. The authors selected students to analyze for two treatment groups and a control group by matching triads of students as closely as possible on a pretest composite score calculated by averaging the z-scores of all pretest scores. Both treatment groups received 30 minutes of tutoring, but one of the treatment groups spent 10 of the minutes in oral reading practice and the other did not. The WWC considers the two treatment groups to be variants of the Sound Partners intervention and so combines them into a single treatment group.
Intervention Group
In addition to regular classroom reading instruction, both intervention groups received supplementary individual tutoring using Sound Partners. Tutoring occurred for 30-minute sessions during the school day, four days a week, from October to May. One treatment group used Sound Partners phonics-based instruction for 15 to 20 minutes, followed by oral text reading practice in Bob Books® for the remaining 10 to 15 minutes. The other treatment group spent all 30 minutes using Sound Partners.
Comparison Group
The comparison students received regular classroom reading instruction only.
Outcome descriptions
Students were tested on a variety of measures, most of which are standardized tests. They included the WRAT-R Reading subtest; the WRMT-R/NU Word Attack, Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension subtests; the TOWRE Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word subtests; and a passage reading fluency test devised by the authors to measure the rate and accuracy at which students could read grade-appropriate texts. The authors also assessed spelling, but it is not included in this report because it is outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review protocol. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.3.
Support for implementation
Nineteen paraprofessional tutors were hired and paid by the schools in which they worked. More than half of the tutors had at least one year of Sound Partners tutoring experience. Experienced tutors received about two hours of initial training, and new tutors received about four hours of training.
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2009
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades Practice Guide- Assisting Students Struggling with Reading Practice Guide Review Protocol 1.0
- Review Standards 2.0
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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.
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
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
42% English language learners -
Female: 58%
Male: 42% -
Urban
-
Race Black 14% Other or unknown 26% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
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).