A Randomized Field Trial of the Fast ForWord Language Computer-Based Training Program [Fast ForWord vs. business as usual]
Borman, Geoffrey D.; Benson, James G.; Overman, Laura (2009). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v31 n1 p82-106. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ869816
-
examining180Students, grade7
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Fast ForWord®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Total Reading |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (intent-to-treat analyses that include complete cases and eliminate outliers);
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Language Expression |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (intent-to-treat analyses that include complete cases and eliminate outliers);
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Language Expression |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
7th grade sample: Fast ForWord program vs. Control (including outliers);
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th Edition (CTBS/5): Terra Nova Total Reading |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
7th grade sample: Fast ForWord program vs. Control (including outliers);
|
N/A |
N/A |
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: 55%
Male: 45% -
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
Maryland
-
Race Asian 1% Black 65% Native American 1% Other or unknown 1% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 1% Not Hispanic or Latino 99%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in eight urban public schools in Baltimore – two elementary schools, three middle schools, and three elementary-middle schools. Intervention group students participated in the Fast ForWord program in resource rooms in their schools.
Study sample
The student participants tended to have below average reading and language scores. In the analytic sample reported in the published paper (n=180, with 86 intervention group students and 94 comparison group students), 44.2 percent of the intervention group and 45.7 percent of the comparison group were males. Among the intervention group, 0 percent were Native American, 1.2 percent were Asian, 64 percent were Black, 33.7 percent were White, 1.2 percent were Latino, and 73.3 percent were eligible for free lunch. Among the comparison group, 2.1 percent were Native American, 1.1 percent were Asian, 66 percent were Black, 29.8 percent were White, 1.1 percent were Latino, and 84 percent were eligible for free lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention group received the Fast ForWord Language intervention, which consists of 100 minutes of training per day, 5 days a week for 4-8 weeks. The Fast ForWord programs used computer technology to change features of oral language (e.g., volume, pitch, and duration) so that students could more easily recognize individual phonemes. The “stretching and enhancement” of the sounds of language were varied systematically in degree and intensity throughout the programs. Also, the programs adapted to individual participants’ skill level by providing less scaffolding as students progress. For example, speech sounds were gradually moved closer together until natural speech is presented. Fast ForWord Language, a computer-based intervention, involved exercises provided in a game-like environment with animations. Participants received on-screen rewards for successfully completing segments of the program, and a token economy system was used to reward students for achieving point goals. Points were awarded for both correct answers and attentiveness to instruction. Participant data were uploaded daily to Scientific Learning, and then weekly reports on participant progress were generated. Students began at a basic level and advance through the program as they achieved predetermined levels of proficiency. Typically, participants completed the program in 6-8 weeks. In this study, students in the intervention group participated in the Fast ForWord Language program in resource rooms within each school. Intervention group students participated in Fast ForWord training during the school day as part of a pullout program. Thus, the Fast ForWord Language program was supplemental to the regular classroom literacy instruction provided to all students.
Comparison Group
The comparison group was business-as-usual. While intervention group students participated in the Fast ForWord program, comparison group students participated in non-literacy instruction or special activities and classes (e.g., art, gym).
Support for implementation
At each of the eight schools, the researchers conducted three brief site visits (during the first, third, and fifth weeks of the program) and used a checklist to assess the quality of the program implementation. Specific aspects of the program that were assessed included whether the computers and training rooms met requirements, what implementation support was provided by school personnel and Scientific Learning, and how problems had been addressed. Scientific Learning provided a training session to all participating teachers prior to the start of the program, and each participating school had a representative from Scientific Learning visit the school to oversee initial implementation. Additionally, data pertaining to fidelity of implementation and compliance with the intervention, as well as data concerning individual student progress were collected via Scientific Learning. Data collected include the overall number of training sessions attended by a given student, the student’s compliance with the program schedule (calculated by dividing the total minutes a student has trained by the total minutes a student should have trained), and the student’s exercise completion rate.
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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 Fast ForWord®.
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.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).