Individual Differences in Gains from Computer-Assisted Remedial Reading.
Wise, Barbara W.; Ring, Jeremiah; Olson, Richard K. (2000). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, v77 n3 p197-235. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ618647
-
examining200Students, grades2-5
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.Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it is out of scope of the protocol
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 Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS).
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 (findings for Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.))
- 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
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nonword decoding %C |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
52.90 |
38.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC) II RS |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
9.80 |
6.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phoneme deletion %C |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 2 |
Follow-up sample;
|
60.60 |
47.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phoneme deletion %C |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
50.70 |
39.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Pseudoword reading %C |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
51.40 |
39.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phoneme deletion %C |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 1 |
Follow-up sample;
|
52.00 |
41.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC) II RS |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 2 |
Follow-up sample;
|
10.30 |
8.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Time-limited RS |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 1 |
Follow-up sample;
|
42.60 |
38.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Time-limited RS |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 2 |
Follow-up sample;
|
57.70 |
52.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
PIAT Standard Scores |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
93.80 |
91.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
PIAT Standard Scores |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 1 |
Follow-up sample;
|
91.40 |
88.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT): Spelling subtest |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
83.00 |
81.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
PIAT Standard Scores |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 2 |
Follow-up sample;
|
90.60 |
88.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT): Spelling subtest |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
Follow-up 2 |
Follow-up sample;
|
86.60 |
83.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
PIAT: Spelling Standard Scores |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
88.50 |
88.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT): Spelling subtest |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
79.10 |
79.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Time-limited RS |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
36.50 |
39.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
PIAT: Comprehension Standard Scores |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
95.50 |
93.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest normal curve equivalent (NCE) |
Phonological Training including Auditory Discrimination in Depth (A.D.D.) vs. Another intervention |
End of training |
Full sample;
|
25.60 |
25.20 |
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: 41%
Male: 59% -
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
Colorado
-
Race Asian 1% White 96% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96%
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).