Intervention Provided to Linguistically Diverse Middle School Students with Severe Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word reading, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency vs. business as usual]
Denton, Carolyn A.; Wexler, Jade; Vaughn, Sharon; Bryan, Deanna (2008). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v23 n2 p79-89. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790878
-
examining38Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Denton et al. (2008)))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) |
Reading intervention (Denton et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.93 |
47.92 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Denton et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
64.43 |
64.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Basic Reading Skills Cluster |
Reading intervention (Denton et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
75.12 |
72.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Denton et al. (2008)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
71.60 |
72.94 |
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.
-
58% English language learners -
Female: 32%
Male: 68% -
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
South, West
-
Race Black 24% Other or unknown 76% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 76% Not Hispanic or Latino 24%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with 38 students (20 in treatment and 18 in typical practice) with severe reading difficulties in grades 6-8 from one middle school in an urban school district in the Southwest region of the U.S.
Study sample
Forty percent of students in the intervention group identified as female while 22 percent of students in the comparison group identified as female. In the intervention group, 25 percent of students were Black and 75 percent were Hispanic. In the comparison group, 22 percent of students were Black and 78 percent were Hispanic. Eighty percent of students in the intervention group received special education services while 94 percent of students in the comparison group received special education services. Sixty percent of students in the intervention group and 56 percent of students in the comparison group were English learners.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention of focus was a multi-component reading intervention that targeted students’ reading fluency, comprehension, word identification, and spelling skills. This reading intervention was an adaptation of a phonics-based remedial program that incorporates practices for English learners, vocabulary instruction, and fluency and comprehension strategies. Students in the intervention group received support in small groups comprised of two to four students. One of two teachers delivered the intervention to each group; one teacher was a certified special education teacher with nine years of experience and the other teacher had experience with bilingual education. Teachers provided explicit and systematic instruction and aimed to individualize content as needed. The intervention focused heavily on phonics, word recognition, spelling, and fluency as a result of students’ reading needs; teachers devoted most lessons to explicit word-level instruction and reinforcement. Teachers integrated English as a second language strategies into their instruction, such as concrete examples and visuals. Their instructional sessions followed a two-day cycle, devoting alternate days to decoding (reading) and spelling. Over 13 weeks of the study, the teachers delivered 47-55 daily intervention sessions, each lasting approximately 40 minutes.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction, comprised of the standard remedial reading or special education instruction they received in their classes. Six teachers provided instruction to the comparison group.
Support for implementation
The two teachers who delivered the intervention received at least 10 hours of implementation training and ongoing support and supervision from a study author.
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.
-
58% English language learners -
Female: 32%
Male: 68% -
Urban
-
Race Black 24% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 76%
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).