Responding to Nonresponders: An Experimental Field Trial of Identification and Intervention Methods
McMaster, Kristen L.; Fuchs, Douglas; Fuchs, Lynn S.; Compton, Donald L. (2005). Exceptional Children, v71 n4 p445. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ697214
-
examining41Students, grade1
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
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.Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2012
- 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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rapid letter naming |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
48.24 |
45.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT): Spelling subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
12.76 |
12.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmentation |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
35.59 |
35.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rapid letter sound |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
42.29 |
44.95 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
6.88 |
8.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
21.15 |
25.09 |
No |
-- | |
|
Blending |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
19.30 |
22.77 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB): Comprehension |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
0.42 |
0.64 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Far-Transfer Fluency |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
20.01 |
22.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Near-Transfer Fluency |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. One-on-one adult tutoring |
End of year |
Grade 1;
|
18.95 |
21.54 |
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.
-
27% English language learners -
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
Tennessee
Study Details
Setting
Eight elementary schools in metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee, participated in the study. Four of the eight study schools were classified as Title I schools; the other four were middle-class, non-Title I schools.
Study sample
Before the study began, 323 first-grade students used PALS for seven weeks and were subsequently tested. The 66 students who scored 0.5 standard deviations or more below average readers in terms of both level and slope on the curriculum-based measures comprised the sample for this study. These 66 students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: PALS, modified PALS, and adult tutoring, with 22 in each condition. The intervention was delivered one-on-one by peers in the PALS and modified PALS conditions and one-on-one by up to eight adult tutors in the adult-tutoring condition. The final analysis sample consisted of 56 students: 21 in PALS, 15 in modified PALS, and 20 in tutoring. Fifteen (27%) of the 56 students were English language learner students. Only the PALS vs. tutoring analysis meets WWC evidence standards, so the analysis sample used in this review includes 41 students in eight schools.
Intervention Group
PALS is a peer-tutoring program that emphasizes phonological awareness, decoding, and fluency. In this study, it was implemented three times a week for 35 minutes each session. Teachers paired higher performing and lower performing readers who took turns coaching each other. The intervention group received PALS over the course of 13 weeks.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received one-on-one tutoring from trained adult research assistants. Adult tutoring took place three times a week, 35 minutes each session, for 13 weeks, and covered the same topics as in the two PALS conditions. The tutoring session was structured similar to a special education pullout program, with greater attention to skill mastery and the student’s specific needs. The study viewed PALS as the business-as-usual comparison group, but the WWC treated the tutoring condition as the comparison for the purposes of this review
Outcome descriptions
Testing was conducted at baseline and at follow-up by two full-time project coordinators and eight graduate students who were trained to ensure inter-rater agreement of at least 90%. Students were tested over two one-on-one sessions in a quiet location in their school. Students were not tested by staff who had tutored them. The baseline Dolch measure, developed by research staff, was used as the covariate in analyses. For this measure, the score was recorded as the number of high-frequency words read correctly in one minute. The outcomes included in this study were Blending, Rapid Letter Naming, Rapid Letter Sound, Segmentation, Spelling, Word Identification, and Word Attack in the alphabetics domain; Near-Transfer Fluency and Far-Transfer Fluency in the fluency domain; and the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery: Comprehension measure in the comprehension domain. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Teachers were trained to use PALS in October through a one-day training session before the start of this study. A research staff member visited each classroom twice weekly over the sevenweek period of the initial PALS implementation. In January, research staff attended a one-day workshop to learn the modified PALS and tutoring procedures. Each staff member was then assigned to implement the tutoring or modified PALS intervention. Intervention fidelity for PALS was measured at 92% based on classroom checks conducted in December and March.
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
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.Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2010
Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- 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
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
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2009
- Assisting Students Struggling with Reading Practice Guide Review Protocol 1.0
- Review Standards 2.0
- Other design
- Meets WWC standards with 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
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
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).