National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002
Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia (2006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491144
-
examining104Students, grades3-5
SpellRead Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2013
- 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 SpellRead.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
102.00 |
96.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
92.50 |
88.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
92.50 |
91.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
90.90 |
90.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
92.60 |
92.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
89.20 |
89.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency test |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
103.50 |
99.90 |
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.
-
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 28% White 72%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 32 school units in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU), outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Each school unit consisted of several schools and included two thirdgrade and two fifth-grade instructional groups. Torgesen et al. (2006) does not report an exact number of participating schools.
Study sample
The study design is the random assignment of 32 school units to one of four interventions (SpellRead™, Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading™, and Wilson Reading System®). Within each school, students were randomly assigned either to the treatment group that would receive the intervention assigned to its school or to the comparison group that would receive the standard reading curriculum. This report focuses on schools assigned to SpellRead™ and on findings for fifth graders (as specified by the Adolescent Literacy review protocol). At the time of the analysis, the sample relevant to this review included 104 fifth-grade students (59 in SpellRead™ and 45 in the comparison group) in eight school units. Students were eligible for participation if their teacher identified them as a struggling reader and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. Students scored about one-half to one standard deviation below national norms on baseline measures used to assess their ability to decode words. Among participating intervention group students, 26% had a learning or other disability, 46% were females, and 52% were eligible for free or reduced price lunches. For the comparison group, these proportions were 35%, 42%, and 43%, respectively.
Intervention Group
The intervention was implemented from the first week of November 2003 through the first weeks in May 2004. During this time students received an average of 90 hours of SpellRead™, which was delivered in 50-minute sessions five days a week to groups of three students. The three-student groups were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of each group determined the pace of learning. Many of the sessions took place during the students’ regular classroom reading instruction, but outside their regular classrooms. Implementation fidelity was examined by trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months and by project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions. In addition, ratings of a sample of videotaped sessions were used. Trainers and project coordinators rated implementation as acceptable.
Comparison Group
The comparison group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program).
Outcome descriptions
The study reported student outcomes after six months of program implementation. The primary outcomes in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the WRMT-R, and the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and the Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the TOWRE. The primary outcome in the reading fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary outcomes in the comprehension domain were the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest and the GRADE Passage Comprehension subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes one year after the end of the implementation of the intervention can be found in Appendices D1–D3.
Support for implementation
Professional development on how to use SpellRead™ included training and coaching by SpellRead™ program staff, teachers’ independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences between teachers and SpellRead™ staff. On average, the SpellRead™ group teachers participated in 78.1 professional development hours (30.1 hours for initial training, 24.9 hours for a practice phase, and 23.1 hours for training during the six-month SpellRead™ intervention period).
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.
-
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National assessment of Title I. Final report. Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings
Corrective Reading Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2010
- 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 Corrective Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
88.70 |
86.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
97.40 |
95.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
87.30 |
85.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
92.90 |
92.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
93.80 |
92.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
96.30 |
96.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency test |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Spring 2004 |
Grade 5;
|
96.80 |
91.90 |
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.
-
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 27% White 73% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Not Hispanic or Latino 98%
Study Details
Setting
The analysis sample included seven school units in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU), outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The AIU consisted of 42 school districts.
Study sample
The study design was based on random assignment of 32 school units, formed from a pool of 52 schools, to one of four interventions (Corrective Reading, Kaplan SpellRead, Failure Free Reading, and Wilson Reading). Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the treatment group that would receive the intervention assigned to its school or to the control group that would receive the standard reading curriculum. This report focuses on schools assigned to Corrective Reading and on findings for 5th graders (as specified by the Adolescent Literacy review protocol). At the time of the analysis, the sample relevant to this review included 86 fifth-grade students (55 in Corrective Reading and 31 in the control group) in seven school units. The number of 5th-grade students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible for participation if their teacher identified them as a struggling reader and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. On average, at baseline, students scored about one-half to one standard deviation below national norms on measures used to assess their ability to decode words. About 51% of the intervention group students were females, compared to 36% in the control group. About 41% of the intervention group students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs, equal to 41% of the students in the control group.
Intervention Group
The decoding component of Corrective Reading was implemented by nine teachers beginning in the first week in November 2003 through the first week in May 2004. The comprehension component was not implemented. The intervention was administered to students in groups of three that were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of the students in each of the instructional groups determined the pace of instruction. Implementation fidelity was determined by reading program trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months, project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions, and ratings based on a sample of videotaped sessions. Implementation was rated as acceptable. The decoding component used in the study included four levels—A, B1, B2, and C. Placement testing was used to start each group at the appropriate level. The lessons provided during the study clustered in levels B1 and B2. For those groups that progressed to level C, explicit vocabulary instruction was not provided. Over a six-month period, students received a total of about 90 hours of instruction. Students received Corrective Reading instruction five days a week in sessions that were approximately 55 minutes long. The study reported student outcomes after six months of program implementation. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes one year after the end of the implementation of the intervention can be found in Appendices A4.1–A4.3.
Comparison Group
The control group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). Across four interventions, the control group students had fewer small-group instructional hours and average weekly hours of total reading instruction than the intervention group students.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) and the Phonetic Decoding Efficiency and Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). The primary measure in the reading fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test (also referred to as AIMSweb). The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the WRMT-R: Comprehension subtest and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.3.
Support for implementation
Professional development on how to use Corrective Reading included training and coaching by Corrective Reading program staff, teachers’ independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences between teachers and Corrective Reading staff. On average, throughout the course of the study, the Corrective Reading intervention group teachers participated in 70.8 professional development hours specifically related to using Corrective Reading (32.8 hours were initial training in use of the program, 26.4 hours were spent in a practice phase, and 11.6 hours occurred during the six-month period in which teachers were using Corrective Reading).
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.
-
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National assessment of Title I. Final report. Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings
Wilson Reading System® Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2010
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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 Wilson Reading System®.
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.SpellRead Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 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 SpellRead.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
95.84 |
88.74 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
100.41 |
93.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
89.61 |
87.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
92.16 |
91.46 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
84.58 |
79.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
92.54 |
92.34 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
SpellRead vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
65.02 |
64.02 |
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.
-
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 28% White 72%
Study Details
Setting
Eight school units in Pennsylvania.
Study sample
The study design was based on random assignment of 37 school units to one of four interventions: Corrective Reading, SpellRead™ Failure Free Reading, or Wilson Reading. Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the comparison condition or to the intervention randomly assigned to their school. This report focuses on eight school units assigned to SpellRead™. At the time of analysis, the study included 92 third-grade students (56 in the intervention and 36 in the comparison groups). The number of students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible to participate in the study if they were identified as struggling readers by their teachers and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. Thirty-five percent of students in the intervention groups were African-American and 32% in the comparison groups. The other students were Caucasian. Forty-six percent of students in the intervention groups and 36% in the comparison groups were eligible for free/reduced lunch.
Intervention Group
The intervention was implemented from the first week of November 2003 through the first weeks in May 2004. During this time students received, on average, about 90 hours of instruction, which was delivered in 50-minute sessions five days a week to groups of three students. The three-student groups were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of each group determined the pace of learning. Many of the sessions took place during the student’s regular classroom reading instruction, but outside their regular classrooms. Therefore, intervention group students received less reading instruction in the classroom than did students in the comparison group. Implementation fidelity was examined by trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months and by project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions. In addition, ratings of a sample of videotaped sessions were used. Implementation was rated as acceptable.
Comparison Group
The comparison group students received their typical reading instruction, which included the regular classroom curriculum and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). The comparison group students had fewer small-group instructional hours than the intervention group students, but more one-on-one instructional hours.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the word identification and word attack subtests of the WRMT–R and the phonemic decoding efficiency and the sight words efficiency subtests of the TOWRE. The primary measure in the fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the WRMT–R passage comprehension subtest and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) passage comprehension subtest. (See Appendices A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Professional development included training and coaching by reading program staff, independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences. On average, intervention group teachers participated in 63.5 professional development hours across all phases of the study (initial training phase, practice phase, and implementation phase).
Wilson Reading System® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 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 Wilson Reading System®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
103.10 |
94.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
91.97 |
86.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
87.19 |
84.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
92.21 |
89.75 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
89.97 |
85.78 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
93.87 |
92.87 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
46.95 |
41.00 |
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.
-
Female: 66%
Male: 34% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 42% White 58%
Failure Free Reading Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 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 Failure Free Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
90.01 |
87.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
88.01 |
86.66 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
89.36 |
89.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
87.05 |
88.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
83.71 |
78.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
90.38 |
87.65 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
56.89 |
55.03 |
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.
-
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 22% White 78%
Study Details
Setting
Eight school units in Pennsylvania.
Study sample
The study design was based on random assignment of 37 school units to one of four interventions: Corrective Reading, Kaplan SpellRead, Failure Free Reading, or Wilson Reading. Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the intervention or to the comparison condition. This report focuses on eight school units assigned to Failure Free Reading. At the time of analysis, the sample included 93 third-grade students (55 in intervention and 38 in comparison groups). The number of students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible for participation in the study if they were identified as struggling readers by their teachers and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. The intervention group had 24% African-American students and the comparison group had 19%. The remaining students were Caucasian. Forty-five percent of the intervention group and 49% of the comparison group students were eligible for free/reduced lunch.
Intervention Group
Failure Free Reading was implemented by 10 teachers. According to the study, almost all students in the intervention group received some of the treatment and a very large percentage received 80 or more hours of instruction. The intervention was administered in three ways: large-group reading instruction was delivered by a general education teacher most of the week, pull-out instruction in groups of three students with mixed levels of basic reading skills occurred for about six hours a week, and one-on-one instruction was delivered by a reading specialist for less than one hour a week. Implementation fidelity was analyzed by reading program trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over several months, project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions, and ratings based on a sample of videotaped sessions. Implementation was rated as acceptable.
Comparison Group
The comparison group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). The comparison group students had fewer small-group instructional hours than the intervention group students, but more one-on-one instructional hours.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised (WRMT–R) and the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and the Sight Words Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). The primary measure in the fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the Passage Comprehension subtest of WRMT–R and the Passage Comprehension subtest of Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). (See Appendix A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Professional development included training and coaching by reading program staff, independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences. On average, intervention group teachers participated in 70.8 professional development hours across all phases of the study (initial training phase, practice phase, and implementation phase).
Corrective Reading Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 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 Corrective Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
100.34 |
95.15 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
90.98 |
86.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
91.06 |
87.77 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
89.86 |
89.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
87.39 |
83.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
93.16 |
92.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
66.04 |
55.33 |
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.
-
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 23% White 78%
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).