Implementation of Effective Intervention: An Empirical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI). 2009-2010
Ransford-Kaldon, Carolyn R.; Flynt, E. Sutton; Ross, Cristin L.; Franceschini, Louis; Zoblotsky, Todd; Huang, Ying; Gallagher, Brenda (2010). Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544374
-
examining427Students, gradesK-2
Leveled Literacy Intervention Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 Leveled Literacy Intervention.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (aggregated, grades K-2);
|
0.22 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (aggregated, grades K-1);
|
0.34 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (aggregated, grades K-1);
|
0.39 |
0.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (grade K);
|
0.23 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Black;
|
0.10 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.21 |
0.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
0.10 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
0.21 |
0.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; White;
|
0.49 |
0.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
0.48 |
0.42 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
0.43 |
0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; White;
|
0.10 |
0.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2; White;
|
0.33 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; White;
|
0.33 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.42 |
0.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Black;
|
0.22 |
0.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
0.33 |
0.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Black;
|
0.32 |
0.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
0.26 |
0.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.39 |
0.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; White;
|
0.24 |
0.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Black;
|
0.18 |
0.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (aggregated, grades K-2);
|
6.08 |
4.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Hispanic or Latino;
|
1.89 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2; White;
|
11.43 |
9.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
1.82 |
1.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Black;
|
1.73 |
1.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
5.78 |
3.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
5.29 |
3.68 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; White;
|
1.78 |
1.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (aggregated, grades 1-2);
|
0.19 |
0.16 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
0.15 |
0.11 |
Yes |
|
||
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
0.12 |
0.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2; White;
|
0.24 |
0.23 |
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.
-
13% English language learners -
Rural, Suburban
-
- 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
Georgia, New York
-
Race Black 33% Other or unknown 38% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Not Hispanic or Latino 63%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in five rural elementary schools in Tifton, Georgia and four suburban elementary schools in Middletown, New York.
Study sample
The study participants, who were in grades K–2, were predominantly economically disadvantaged, with 84% being eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The study included predominantly minority students; 37% were Hispanic, 33% were African American, and 29% were White. Approximately 13% of students were classified as English learners.
Intervention Group
For all grades, the intervention included 30-minute daily small-group LLI sessions in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction. Grade 1 and 2 students in the LLI group received, on average, 72.9 sessions, with individual students attending between 40 and 90 sessions. Kindergarten students in the LLI group received on average 37.5 sessions, with individual students attending between 27 and 46 sessions.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received regular classroom literacy instruction but no additional supplemental instruction. The study did not specify the names of the curricula used.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers received 8 days of professional development using the LLI materials and instructional techniques, and training on the online data management system for LLI. The authors note that professional development support continued during the study period.
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.
-
Ransford-Kaldon, Carolyn; Flynt, E. Sutton; Ross, Cristin. (2011). A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Tier 2 Literacy Program: Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2014
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School 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.
-
100% English language learners -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Black 34% White 29% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37%
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).