Reading Plus. (2008). Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc.
Reviewed: September 2010
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 Reading Plus®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT): Reading |
Reading Plus® vs. Another intervention |
spring 2007 |
Grade 5-9;
|
1554.54 |
1538.59 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 45% | |
| White | 8% |
| Hispanic | 45% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 55% |
The study was conducted in 98 schools located in two regions that are part of the Miami-Dade School District in Florida. The participating schools served more than 90% minority students and 22% English language learners, and 15% of the student population received special education services.
This quasi-experimental study was conducted in 98 schools and included students in grades 5 to 9 who had valid 2006 and 2007 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) reading scores. Students who completed one or more Reading Plus® lessons during the 2006–07 school year formed the intervention group, and students who completed no Reading Plus® lessons during the same period constituted the comparison group. Although Reading Plus® was used by students in various grades and student populations within each of the 98 schools, this review focuses on students who scored at achievement level 1 or 2 (non-proficient) on the 2006 reading portion of the FCAT. The analysis sample consisted of 6,070 low-achieving students in the Reading Plus® group and 7,058 low-achieving students in the comparison group.
Reading Plus® is a computer-based program that is implemented online. It encompasses the following activities: instant word recognition practice with less familiar words, reading practice with text difficulty matched to each student’s reading ability, exposure to high-utility words within assigned texts, attention building activities, sustained reading time matched with each student’s attention span, vocabulary building, word acquisition activities, and practice with 25 comprehension skills. The participating schools implemented Reading Plus® to varying degrees. Most schools followed a schedule of either two 45-minute sessions per week or three 30-minute sessions per week for approximately six months. The average number of lessons completed by students participating in the study was 33.
Comparison students completed no Reading Plus® lessons. Most nonparticipating students used Scholastic’s Read 180 and/or Renaissance Learning’s Accelerated Reader.
For both the pretest and the posttest, students took the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Reading comprehension was measured using the developmental scaled scores on the reading section of the FCAT. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.
Intervention teachers were trained on the use and intent of Reading Plus® during the fall of 2006. No other information is available about the training.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube