Fluency Formula second grade study, Long Island, New York 2003-2004: Evaluation research on the effectiveness of Fluency Formula.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2005). Retrieved from Scholastic Education Web site: http://teacher.scholastic.com/ products/fluencyformula/pdfs/FF_EffectivessReport.pdf.
-
examining128Students, grade2
Fluency Formula Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2007
- 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 Fluency Formula.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Fluency Formula vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
477.46 |
480.82 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA) |
Fluency Formula vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
84.85 |
78.62 |
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.
-
Suburban
-
- 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
Northeast
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in five schools across two suburban school districts in the northeastern United States.
Study sample
The study began with 252 second-grade students (127 in the intervention condition) from 12 classrooms (six classrooms in each condition). Participants came from three schools in one district and two schools in a second district (personal communication). Classrooms were matched on students’ reading ability, demographic variables, and teacher characteristics and then randomly assigned to study conditions. Because Fluency Formula™ does not target high-performing students, analyses were limited to the 143 students scoring at or below the 75th percentile on the Edformation Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA) pretest. Fifteen additional students were removed from analyses: one student who moved from the comparison to intervention group, eight students who exited the program, four students who missed at least half the intervention lessons, and two students with a large number of absences. The final analyses were based on data from 66 intervention students and 62 comparison students. According to data provided in the study, the remaining students (analysis sample) from the intervention and comparison groups were comparable on pretest achievement measures (OFA).
Intervention Group
Fluency Formula™ was delivered as a supplement to the participating schools’ standard reading/English language arts curriculum. Intervention group teachers followed the six-unit curriculum sequence in the Fluency Formula™ Professional Guide. Students classified as “low initial ability” (based on the pretest of oral fluency) received four days a week of Fluency Formula™ instruction (two days of whole-class instruction plus two days of small-group instruction). Students classified as “high initial ability” received two days of whole-class Fluency Formula™ instruction. Once a week, students received a 15-minute take-home assignment.
Comparison Group
The comparison group students received the participating schools’ standard reading/English language arts curriculum with no supplemental materials or instruction. The comparison group teachers were not exposed to the Fluency Formula™ materials or professional development.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome measure in the fluency domain is the Edformation Oral Fluency Assessment (OFA) and the primary outcome in the comprehension domain is the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Passage Comprehension subtest (see Appendixes A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Intervention group teachers attended one after-school professional development session (about two and a half hours) that presented the theoretical basis, components, and implementation of the program. Teachers followed the instructional sequence detailed in the Fluency Formula™ Professional Guide.
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.
-
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2005). Fluency Formula second grade study, Long Island, New York 2003-2004: A summary of the effectiveness research for Fluency Formula. Retrieved from Scholastic Education Web site: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/.
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).