Success for All evaluation: 1997–1998 Tigard-Tualatin School District.
Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
-
examining265Students, gradeK
Success for All® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2017
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
3.64 |
2.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
8.38 |
5.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, Lowest 25%;
|
3.18 |
0.62 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, Lowest 25%;
|
1.03 |
0.31 |
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 |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
3.71 |
3.66 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, Lowest 25%;
|
1.50 |
1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.78 |
0.49 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: K, Lowest 25%;
|
0.20 |
0.00 |
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.
-
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
Oregon
-
Race Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in four elementary schools located in the Tigard-Tualatin School District in Oregon.
Study sample
This study examined the effects of SFA® in two elementary schools in the Tigard-Tualatin School District and used two elementary schools in the same school district as a comparison group. The study took place over 1 school year (1997–98) and included kindergarten and first-grade students. Students at the same grade levels in four schools were described as demographically similar. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on the kindergarten sample because comparisons of first graders did not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement and therefore did not meet WWC group design standards. The analytic sample included 156 kindergarten students in the SFA® group and 109 kindergarten students in the comparison group. The schools in the intervention and comparison groups had low proportions of minority students, as well as low proportions of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch. All study schools had between 12% and 17% minority enrollment, contained less than 1,000 students, and between 11% and 21% of students received free or reduced-price lunches.
Intervention Group
No description of SFA® as implemented in the study is provided in the text.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received the district’s standard reading program for kindergarten. No other information was provided on the comparison curriculum.
Support for implementation
No information on training for the specific teachers in this study was provided.
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).