
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. NCEE 2009-4032
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Mansfield, Wendy; Deke, John; Carey, Nancy; Lugo-Gil, Julieta; Hershey, Alan; Douglas, Aaron; Gersten, Russell; Newman-Gonchar, Rebecca; Dimino, Joseph; Faddis, Bonnie (2009). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505578
-
examining2,332Students, grade5
Project CRISS® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: June 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 Project CRISS®.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ETS: Science Comprehension |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
spring |
Grade 5;
|
501.44 |
500.76 |
No |
-- | |
ETS: Social Studies Comprehension |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
spring |
Grade 5;
|
499.64 |
500.61 |
No |
-- | |
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
spring |
Grade 5;
|
100.48 |
101.06 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 2% Black 37% Native American 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in ten geographically diverse school districts in eight states (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin). To be eligible for the study, school districts needed to have (1) at least 12 schools that received Title I funds, (2) at least 40% of students eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program, and (3) at least 60 5th-grade students per school. The school districts in the study were significantly larger, more disadvantaged, and more urban than the average U.S. school district.
Study sample
The study, which explored the impact of Project CRISS® as well as three other reading comprehension curricula (ReadAbout, Read for Real, and Reading for Knowledge), included 6,350 5th-grade students from 89 schools in ten school districts. Districts that had at least 12 Title I schools and who were not implementing any of the four selected curricula were recruited into the study. Within each school district, schools were randomly assigned either to one of the four intervention conditions or to the control group. Eligible students attended study schools and were enrolled in grade 5 when baseline tests were administered or transferred in after baseline and before January 1, 2007. Multiage grade levels and non-mainstreamed special education students were excluded from the sample. The analysis that is included in this review focused on the effect of Project CRISS® and examined a sample of 1,155 students attending 17 Project CRISS® schools and 1,183 students attending 21 control schools.
Intervention Group
Intervention group students received Project CRISS® strategies as part of their regular instruction. Instructional components included: (1) use of student and teacher editions of Learning How to Learn, which provided detailed lesson plans, learning, and practice through use of Tough Terminators, a science trade book; (2) use of a variety of graphic organizers and note-taking, discussion, vocabulary, and writing strategies; and (3) application of strategies to regular science and social studies texts. Project CRISS® teachers, on average, were observed engaging in 78% of teaching practices important to intervention implementation. The study reported students’ reading comprehension outcomes after nine months of program implementation.
Comparison Group
Control group schools did not have access to any of the four curricula being tested. Control group teachers could, however, use other supplemental reading programs.
Outcome descriptions
For the pretest, students took the passage comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) and the Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF). For the posttest, all students took the passage comprehension subtest of the GRADE. Students were also randomly assigned to take one of two reading comprehension assessments developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for this study; these tests focused on either science or social studies. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Support for implementation
Project CRISS® teachers received 18 hours of initial training, including 12 hours on using the strategies in the teacher’s guide and six hours on using the student text and workbook. Teachers received a training manual, a teacher’s guide, a student text, and a wrap-around edition of the student workbook. In addition, teachers received six hours of follow-up training. Trainers also visited schools monthly to observe teachers and provide feedback. The developer also encouraged teachers to use bi-weekly study teams in which teachers review and discuss their use of CRISS strategies.
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. NCEE 2009-4032
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2010
- Quick Review (80 KB) (findings for Reading For Knowledge)
- 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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social Studies ETS |
Reading For Knowledge vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Reading For Knowledge;
|
499.40 |
501.70 |
No |
-- | |
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Reading For Knowledge vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Reading For Knowledge;
|
99.25 |
100.80 |
Yes |
|
|
Composite Test Score |
Reading For Knowledge vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Reading For Knowledge;
|
-0.10 |
0.02 |
Yes |
|
|
Science ETS |
Reading For Knowledge vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Reading For Knowledge;
|
495.70 |
501.50 |
Yes |
|
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 2% Black 37% Native American 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. NCEE 2009-4032
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2010
- Quick Review (80 KB) (findings for ReadAbout)
- 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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Social Studies ETS |
ReadAbout vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read ABout;
|
501.20 |
501.70 |
No |
-- | |
Science ETS |
ReadAbout vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read ABout;
|
500.60 |
501.50 |
No |
-- | |
Composite Test Score |
ReadAbout vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read ABout;
|
-0.03 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | |
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
ReadAbout vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read ABout;
|
99.83 |
100.80 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 2% Black 37% Native American 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. NCEE 2009-4032
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2010
- Quick Review (80 KB) (findings for Read for Real)
- 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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Read for Real vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read for Real;
|
99.92 |
100.80 |
No |
-- | |
Social Studies ETS |
Read for Real vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read for Real;
|
499.80 |
501.70 |
No |
-- | |
Science ETS |
Read for Real vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read for Real;
|
500.10 |
501.50 |
No |
-- | |
Composite Test Scores |
Read for Real vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Read for Real;
|
-0.05 |
0.02 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 2% Black 37% Native American 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
Effectiveness of Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of Fifth-Grade Students. NCEE 2009-4032
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2010
- Quick Review (80 KB) (findings for Project CRISS®)
- 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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Science ETS |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Project CRISS;
|
502.20 |
501.50 |
No |
-- | |
Social Studies ETS |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Project CRISS;
|
500.80 |
501.70 |
No |
-- | |
Composite Test Score |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Project CRISS;
|
0.00 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | |
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Project CRISS® vs. Business as usual |
2006-07 |
Project CRISS;
|
100.20 |
100.80 |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 2% Black 37% Native American 1% White 31% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 30% Not Hispanic or Latino 70%
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).