Efficacy of a Reading Intervention for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities
Wanzek, Jeanne; Vaughn, Sharon; Roberts, Greg; Fletcher, Jack M. (2011). Exceptional Children, v78 n1 p73-87 Fall 2011. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ939954
-
examining120Students, grades6-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.82 |
80.62 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.37 |
80.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
81.91 |
81.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.58 |
87.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension Subtest |
Supplemental reading instruction—Wanzek et al. (2011) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
81.49 |
80.11 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 55% Other or unknown 29% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Other or unknown 74% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 64% No FRPL 36%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven middle schools in three urban school districts in Texas during the elective course period.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 76 students to the intervention group and 59 students to the comparison group. A total of 120 students in grades 6 through 8 were included in the study’s analysis. The 120 students were in seven middle schools. All students were identified by the school district as having a learning disability. Approximately 64% of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Fifty five percent of students were Black, 16% were White, and 29% did not report race. Twenty six percent were Hispanic or Latino and 74% did not report ethnicity.
Intervention Group
Students received a reading intervention focused on vocabulary, reading comprehension techniques, and guided discussion. It consisted of small group reading instruction for 45-50 minutes in the place of a daily elective class for a whole school year. The intervention had three phases: (1) instruction on word recognition and fluency, (2) instruction on vocabulary and comprehension, and (3) additional instruction on vocabulary and comprehension with independent reading where students applied their comprehension skills. Students needed to respond to each part of the lesson without prompts before moving on to the next skill or lesson. The students were placed in small groups of 10 to 15 students for the supplemental intervention.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group attended their regularly scheduled elective class, such as art or band, while intervention group students attended the reading intervention.
Support for implementation
Fourteen teachers were hired to administer the intervention, and they all received 60 hours of professional development prior to implementation. During the year, the teachers received an additional 9 hours of professional development, attended biweekly staff development meetings to discuss student needs, and received feedback and coaching every two to three weeks. Professional development was related to the intervention components, instructional delivery, behavior management, and promoting active engagement.
Repeated Reading Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2014
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not implement the intervention in a way that falls within the scope of the review–the intervention is bundled with other components.
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 Repeated Reading.
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).