Final Reading Outcomes of the National Randomized Field Trial of Success for All
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Slavin, Robert E.; Cheung, Alan C. K.; Chamberlain, Anne M.; Madden, Nancy A.; Chambers, Bette (2007). American Educational Research Journal, v44 n3 p701-731. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ782058
-
examining1,425Students, gradesK-2
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: August 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 Success for All®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. unknown |
Posttest |
kindergarten;
|
493.43 |
487.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. unknown |
Posttest |
kindergarten;
|
462.96 |
457.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. unknown |
Posttest |
kindergarten;
|
481.41 |
478.33 |
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.
-
7% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Rural, 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
Midwest, South
Study Details
Setting
The analysis sample included 35 elementary schools across 14 states located in rural and small towns in the South and urban areas of the Midwest.
Study sample
The study piloted the SFA ® program in fall 2001, when three schools were randomly assigned to the SFA ® and three schools to the comparison condition. In fall 2002, 35 new schools were recruited with 18 schools randomly assigned to implement SFA ® in grades K–2, and 17 schools randomly assigned to serve as comparisons. The study presented findings after the intervention students completed one, two, and three years of the program. For the effectiveness ratings, the WWC focused on findings from the longitudinal sample, that is, schools and students who completed three years of the program. After three years, 18 SFA ® schools with 707 students and 17 comparison schools with 718 students remained in the longitudinal sample.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received the SFA ® school reform program, including the SFA ® reading curriculum, tutoring for students’ quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. Intervention schools implemented SFA ® in grades K–2 and used their previously planned curriculum in grades 3–5. Some schools took a year to fully implement the program.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools continued using their regular, previously planned curriculum for grades K–2 (SFA ® was implemented in grades 3–5). Authors conducted observations at all schools and indicated that there was no evidence that when SFA ® was implemented in grades 3–5, students in grades K–2 were also exposed to SFA ®. All sample students were pretested with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) prior to SFA ® implementation, and schoolwide PPVT scores show equivalence between the program and comparison schools. Researchers also used information from the Common Core of Data (a database maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics) at several points over the course of the study to demonstrate the equivalence between the program and comparison schools on race/ethnicity, gender, English as a second language, special education, and free and reduced-price lunch. All equivalency tests were assessed at the school level, and no statistically significant differences were found.
Outcome descriptions
Three subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test were administered during the period reflected in the intervention rating: Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension.3 (See Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
SFA ® teachers received three days of training during the summer and approximately eight days of on-site follow-up during the first implementation year. Success for All Foundation trainers visited classrooms, met with groups of teachers, looked at data on children’s progress, and provided feedback to school staff on implementation quality and outcomes.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Slavin, Robert E.; Cheung, Alan C. K.; Chamberlain, Anne M.; Madden, Nancy A.; Chambers, Bette. (2007). Final Reading Outcomes of the National Randomized Field Trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, v44 n3 p701-731.
-
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Slavin, Robert E.; Alan Cheung; Chamberlain, Anne; Madden, Nancy; Chambers, Bette. (2005). The National Randomized Field Trial of Success for All: Second-Year Outcomes. Success for All Foundation.
-
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., & Madden, N. A. (2004). Success for All: Preliminary first-year results from the national randomized field trial. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.
-
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Chambers, B., & Borman, G. (2005). A randomized evaluation of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.
-
Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for All: First-year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22.
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).