Effects of Tutoring in Phonological and Early Reading Skills on Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities.
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Jenkins, Joseph R.; Pool, Kathleen (2000). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v33 n6 p579-90. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ617957
-
examining46Students, grade1
Sound Partners Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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 Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
109.27 |
94.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Bryant Pseudoword Test |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
19.45 |
8.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.51 |
11.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised (WRAT-R): Reading subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
102.45 |
88.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dolch Word Recognition |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
144.74 |
102.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytical Reading Inventory: Primary |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
45.36 |
29.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analytical Reading Inventory: First Grade |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
36.57 |
25.43 |
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: 39%
Male: 61% -
Urban
Study Details
Setting
Participants were from four elementary schools in an urban school district. At the schools, nearly half of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, Title I services were available to students, and two-thirds of students were racial or ethnic minorities.
Study sample
Vadasy, Jenkins, and Pool (2000) is a randomized controlled trial in which 46 first-graders from four elementary schools were randomly assigned to either participate in Sound Partners or receive the schools’ regular classroom instruction. Teachers in 11 classrooms identified up to 6 students each whose reading performance in the fall concerned them. The 64 students identified by the teachers were pretested on four assessments, and those with the 46 lowest scores were randomly assigned. The remaining 18 students were kept as replacement students. In the course of the study, the researchers replaced two treatment and two comparison students on the basis of convenience and scheduling considerations. The groups were balanced on gender (9 girls and 14 boys in each group). The study also examined second-year follow-up scores for a subsample of 37 students. This analysis is not included in this review, however, because the authors did not demonstrate that the intervention and comparison students included in the follow-up results were equivalent at baseline.
Intervention Group
In the study, tutoring took place for 27 weeks. Students attended from 54 to 89 sessions over this period, with an average of 72 sessions per child. The version of Sound Partners used for the study included additional, revised, or expanded components of a preceding version.
Comparison Group
Students in the counterfactual condition participated in the schools’ regular classroom and Title I reading instruction activities.
Outcome descriptions
For both pre- and posttests, the authors administered the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised Reading subtest. For additional posttests, the authors used the Dolch Word Recognition, the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised Word Attack subtest, the Bryant Pseudoword Test, the Yopp-Singer Segmentation Task, and the primary and first-grade passages of the Analytical Reading Inventory. The authors also used two spelling assessments, but they were not included in this review because they are outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review protocol. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Support for implementation
The researchers recruited tutors through the school newsletters. Nine tutors participated in the study (mainly parents of children in the schools). Tutors received $5 per hour for their tutoring and training time, which included eight hours of training before the program began and six additional hours of training during the school year. Training for tutors consisted of explanations, modeling, role-playing of each lesson component, guidelines for behavior management, record keeping, and error correction strategies. Follow-up training occurred during the year by tutor request or when researchers identified a need. Researchers replaced two tutors in the middle of the year with one new tutor.
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).