Emergent Literacy Skills and Training Time Uniquely Predict Variability in Responses to Phonemic Awareness Training in Disadvantaged Kindergartners.
Hecht, Steven A.; Close, Linda (2002). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, v82 n2 p93-115. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ656259
-
examining76Students, gradeK
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- 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.
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.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2014
- Grant Competition
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Does not meet WWC standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not 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
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.Waterford Early Reading Program Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2007
- 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 Waterford Early Reading Program.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT): Spelling subtest with phonemic representation scoring |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
25.57 |
8.09 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Segmenting subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
7.58 |
1.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Blending subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
9.53 |
4.24 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
3.54 |
0.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Sound Matching subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
10.91 |
6.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
4.71 |
2.82 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Concepts About Print Test |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
8.58 |
9.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
19.09 |
22.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter name knowledge |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
21.58 |
24.65 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford-Binet (4th ed): Vocabulary subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
16.91 |
16.58 |
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, 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
Ohio
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six inner city or rural public schools in Ohio.
Study sample
The study began with 140 full-day, at-risk Kindergarten students who were randomly selected from six schools. Students from four schools who received the Waterford Early Reading Program™ were matched to students in two schools who did not receive the program. Students were pretested in the fall and posttested in the spring of the same school year. Because of mobility and absences, 64 students attrited from the study. The final analysis sample included 76 students. The mean age of students was five years and seven months. The majority of students were eligible to receive free/reduced lunch. The majority of students in the schools came from low socio-economic status and African-American families.
Intervention Group
Students received the computer-assisted instruction of Waterford Early Reading Program™–Level One (WERP–1) during their normal classroom lessons for six months. The program focused on phonological awareness skills, letter knowledge, print concepts, and oral language skills. Students worked on the Waterford multimedia computer on their own for 15 minutes each session. A teacher management system was used to track daily time use.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received their regular reading curriculum and were not exposed to the Waterford Early Reading Program™.
Outcome descriptions
Nine outcomes were assessed in the alphabetics domain including the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Process (Phonemic Segmenting, Phonemic Blending, Elision, and Sound Matching subtests), the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement (the Letter Word Identification subtest), the Wide Range Achievement Test (the Spelling subtest with Phonemic Representation scoring), the Concepts About Print Test, the Letter Name Knowledge and Letter Sound Knowledge measures, and the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition Vocabulary subtest. The study also used a letter writing task from the Spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test, but this test was outside the domains specified by the Beginning Reading protocol (see Appendices A2.1–2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Information about teacher training was not provided in the study.
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.
-
Hecht, S. A. (2000). Waterford Early Reading program in Ohio: An evaluation. (Available from the Waterford Institute, Inc., 55 West 900 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101)
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).