Washington Striving Readers: Year 1 evaluation report.
Deussen, T., Scott, C., Nelsestuen, K., Roccograndi, A., & Davis, A. (2012). Portland, OR: Education Northwest. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565842
-
examining401Students, grades6-8
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2022
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Washington Striving Readers)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 1: Phonics Blitz followed by Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 2: Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 2: Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 1: Phonics Blitz followed by Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Washington Measure of Student Progress |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 2: Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Washington Measure of Student Progress |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 1: Phonics Blitz followed by Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Washington Measure of Student Progress |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 1: Phonics Blitz followed by Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Washington Striving Readers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Group 2: Read to Achieve;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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 -
- 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
Washington
Study Details
Setting
Five Title I middle schools in western Washington State. The intervention was implemented 2010-2011.
Study sample
The students in the study were in grade 6-8. Over half of the students in the study were male and eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. English learners (ELs) made up 13% of the sample, and 6% of the sample was eligible for special education but did not have an Individualized Education Plan in reading.
Intervention Group
Group 1 received Phonics Blitz followed by Read to Achieve. Group 2 received Read to Achieve. Phonics Blitz , 2nd edition, is primarily a reading decoding program that involves explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. There are 50 teacher-led lessons with sequenced activities; the average completion rate of the lessons was 50%. As implemented the pacing was behind schedule (took longer to get through lessons, lower number of instructional days than anticipated) leading to low lesson completion ratings; teachers had high fidelity to the components. There were up to 9 students per class. Read to Achieve primarily involves comprehension strategies, vocabulary strategies, fluency strategies and higher-order thinking skills. The curriculum includes two components: content area reading (25 units of 5 lessons each) and narrative reading (15 units with 5 lessons each). For Group 1, the average completion rate of the lessons was 32%, for Group 2 it was 79%. Both components emphasize comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. There was strict fidelity to content and format of lessons and high fidelity to the program. There were up to 13 students per class.
Comparison Group
The intent was for the comparison group to participate in regular ELA class like intervention students, but not receive any supplemental reading instruction (e.g., had a study hall or an elective). When 3 of the 5 schools started offering other reading interventions, comparison students were either barred from participating or all Striving Readers students (intervention and comparison) in the school who participated in the other intervention were removed from the study. They authors note that they did not collect data on whether students participated in after school assistance or tutoring.
Support for implementation
Six teachers were hired for these interventions. They participated in initial summer training, up to 6 additional days of group training during the year, and one 6-hour on-site training. Teachers were also to meet 1:1 with a coach, up to 14 times/year. Administrators were encouraged, but not required, to attend the first half day of the summer training and allowed to participate in other trainings.
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2016
- IES Performance Measure
- 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
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).