An investigation of the effects of a comprehensive reading intervention on the beginning reading skills of first graders at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 2003).
Mooney, P. J. (2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05A), 85–1599.
-
examining47Students, grade1
Sound Partners Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: September 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 Sound Partners.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
68.50 |
55.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
30.90 |
30.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Total Reading |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
95.70 |
92.40 |
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 |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
57.60 |
44.90 |
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: 34%
Male: 66% -
- 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
Nebraska
-
Race Black 21% White 68% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91%
Study Details
Setting
Study participants were enrolled in seven elementary schools in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Study sample
The study included first-grade students who were screened prior to treatment and determined to be at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. All of the students were systematically screened using a modified version of the first two steps of the Systematic Screening for Behavioral Disorders and met criteria for either internalizing or externalizing behavioral disorders.
Intervention Group
Children in the experimental group received the standard beginning reading instruction provided in the classroom in addition to Sound Partners. The general first-grade literacy curriculum included the phonics component of the Open Court reading program and various teacher-designed reading, listening, and writing activities. Students in the experimental group received approximately 30 minutes of tutoring in reading 5 times weekly throughout the majority of the 2002–03 school year (i.e., mid-September through mid-April). The mean number of Sound Partners lessons completed by participants in the experimental condition was 68.2 (range 2 to 100). Of the 28 first-graders who began the intervention, seven (25%) completed all 100 lessons, while four (14%) completed less than half of the lessons.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison group received the standard beginning reading instruction provided in the classroom and a home-school intervention designed to improve social skills known as First Step to Success. All 19 participants in the comparison group completed the First Step to Success program.
Outcome descriptions
The study reports the total reading scores on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative Update (WMRT-R/NU). The total reading score combines the scores from the Word Attack, Word Identification, Word Comprehension, and Passage Comprehension subtests. The study also includes the combined Word Attack and Word Identification scores and the combined Word Comprehension and Passage Comprehension scores, which are presented in Appendix A2.4. In addition, the study presents the scores from three subtests of the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation, Nonsense Word Fluency, and Oral Reading Fluency. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.
Support for implementation
A total of 14 tutors (two at each of the seven schools) implemented the Sound Partners program. Tutors were identified and selected by the research team at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Center for At-Risk Children’s Services. A five-step training strategy was used to train tutors to implement the Sound Partners program: (1) a presentation to tutors on the theory and rationale for Sound Partners; (2) a demonstration involving live modeling of skills; (3) simulated testing conditions to provide practice for the tutors until a high level of skill performance was obtained; (4) structured feedback to tutors on how proficiently they performed during simulated practice conditions (tutors were observed on at least three occasions before beginning tutoring with children); and (5) following training, observation of tutors on a regular basis until a satisfactory maintenance level was achieved.
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).