WWC review of this study

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.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    148
     Students
    , grades
    K-1

Reviewed: March 2017



Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Reviewed: August 2009

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
148 students

10.26

3.15

Yes

 
 
32
 

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1: Cohort 2;
138 students

12.60

7.90

Yes

 
 
23
 

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1: Cohort 2;
138 students

35.04

28.00

Yes

 
 
21
 

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten: Cohort 1;
148 students

32.43

29.36

Yes

 
 
18
 

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1: Cohort 2;
138 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
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;
136 students

16.37

13.91

No

--

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

Success for All® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Kindergarten: Cohort 1;
148 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
138 students

6.74

4.68

Yes

 
 
19
 


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Indiana

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.

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top