1991–1992 Ft. Wayne, Indiana Success for All results.
Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., Faulks, A., Casey, J., Shapiro, M., & Johnson, B. (1993). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Education Policy.
-
examining148Students, gradesK-1
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Additional source not reviewed
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2009
- 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 Success for All®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten: Cohort 1;
|
10.26 |
3.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1: Cohort 2;
|
12.60 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1: Cohort 2;
|
35.04 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten: Cohort 1;
|
32.43 |
29.36 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1: Cohort 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
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. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1: Cohort 2;
|
16.37 |
13.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten: Cohort 1;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durrell Oral Reading subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
6.74 |
4.68 |
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.
-
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
Indiana
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four elementary schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Study sample
This study involved approximately 286 students in kindergarten and first grade in four elementary schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Two schools implemented the SFA ® program. Two comparison schools were matched to the intervention schools based on poverty level, historical achievement level, and ethnicity; then pairs of students were matched on PPVT pretest scores. There were 74 kindergarteners and 69 first-grade students in the intervention group, and 74 kindergarteners and 69 first-grade students in the comparison group. Exact student attrition rates are not known for this study; however, the post-attrition intervention and comparison samples were equivalent on achievement pretest. School-level data—poverty level, achievement, and enrollment—were similar across all schools. The study included data on students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation.
Intervention Group
Intervention students received the typical SFA ® 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.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools continued using their regular, previously planned curriculum. No other information was provided on the comparison curriculum.
Outcome descriptions
Four subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test were used: Letter Identification, Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension. Additional measures included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty Oral Reading subtest. The Merrill Language Screening Test and the Test of Language Development were also administered but have not been included in this review because they were outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review (see Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Teachers in their first year of teaching SFA ® classes received three days of summer training and two to four additional in-service days during the school year. A school facilitator monitored and provided feedback throughout the year. Twice a year, trainers provided by the developer visited and observed teachers. After the first year, training was reinforced by regular in-services, an annual SFA® conference, and implementation checks for the facilitators and trainers.
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.
-
Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353.
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).