Fast ForWord® evaluation, 2002–03 (Eye on Evaluation, E&R Report No. 03. 24).
Overbay, A., & Baenen, N. (2003). Raleigh, NC: Wake County Public School System.
-
examining710Students, grades3-8
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- Quasi-Experimental 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast ForWord®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Grade 3;
|
243.20 |
245.90 |
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: 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 89% White 10% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 1% Not Hispanic or Latino 99%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted at public schools in Wake County, North Carolina.
Study sample
During the 2002–03 school year, 80 third-grade students received the Fast ForWord® program. Of these, 71 were matched with students from non-Fast ForWord® schools based on race, limited English proficiency status, a special programs code, free and reduced-price lunch status, and reading pretest scores. Nine students were missing either pre- or posttest scores. Fast ForWord® was used in six elementary schools, and the comparison students were taken from schools that did not use Fast ForWord®.
Intervention Group
For the entire range of grades and intervention group students in the study, 91% used Fast ForWord® Language, 56% used Fast ForWord® Language to Reading, and 13% used Fast ForWord® to Reading.
Comparison Group
No information is provided.
Outcome descriptions
North Carolina’s End of Grade test was used as both the pretest and the posttest. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
No information is provided.
Fast ForWord® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2010
- Quasi-Experimental 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Fast ForWord®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 4-8;
|
154.37 |
155.37 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 5;
|
156.07 |
155.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8;
|
157.70 |
158.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 7;
|
155.70 |
156.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6;
|
149.80 |
151.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina End of Grade Test |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
148.39 |
150.90 |
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.
-
5% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
North Carolina
-
Race Asian 3% Black 34% Other or unknown 2% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 7% Not Hispanic or Latino 93%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one school district (10 treatment schools) in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Study sample
During the 2002–03 school year, 616 third- to eighth-grade students received the Fast ForWord® program. Of these, 426 were matched with students from non-Fast ForWord® schools based on race, limited English proficiency status, a special programs code, free and reduced-price lunch status, and reading pretest scores. The remaining 190 were missing either pre- or posttest scores and, therefore, were not included in the matching process. The analysis sample for this review included students in grades 4–8: 355 students in the Fast ForWord® group and 355 in the comparison group.1 Fast ForWord® was used in 10 elementary, middle, and high schools, and the comparison students were selected from schools that did not use Fast ForWord®. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes by grade can be found in Appendix A4.
Intervention Group
During the school year, the intervention group used Fast ForWord® Language, Fast ForWord® Language to Reading, and Fast ForWord® Reading. Most of the Fast ForWord® participants (91.4%) used Fast ForWord® Language; the majority (60%) used more than one level of the program. The 8.6% who did not use Fast ForWord® Language had completed it in 2001–02.
Comparison Group
The counterfactual in this study is regular classroom instruction. However, the study authors note that students in the comparison group may have been exposed to a variety of other programs or interventions that were not controlled for in this study.
Outcome descriptions
For both pre- and posttests, the authors used the End of Grade Reading Subtest. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.3.
Support for implementation
No information about teacher or staff training was provided.
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).