Response to Intervention for Middle School Students with Reading Difficulties: Effects of a Primary and Secondary Intervention [Reading intervention on word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension vs. business as usual]
Vaughn, Sharon; Cirino, Paul T.; Wanzek, Jeanne; Wexler, Jade; Fletcher, Jack M.; Denton, Carolyn D.; Barth, Amy; Romain, Melissa; Francis, David J. (2010). School Psychology Review, v39 n1 p3-21. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886407
-
examining326Students, grade6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2182.60 |
2150.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency (TOSRE) |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.90 |
91.20 |
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 (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.35 |
87.47 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.87 |
88.32 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.85 |
93.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.47 |
94.87 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.06 |
94.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
96.44 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Word List Fluency (Vaughn et al., 2010) |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
81.28 |
77.65 |
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
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 Asian 1% Black 46% Other or unknown 41% White 12% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in two urban southwestern cities. Three participating middles schools came from one large school district, and four middle schools came from two medium-sized school districts. The study authors did not provide further information about the number or type of classrooms involved.
Study sample
All participating 6th-grade students were identified as struggling readers. Eligibility was determined based on performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Students were eligible if they obtained a score less than 2100 or if the lower-bound 95% confidence interval around their score fell below 2100. Students were also eligible if they were exempt from taking the TAKS based on special education status or had very low reading achievement. Students were excluded if they were enrolled in an alternative curriculum, read at or below the 2nd-grade level, were identified as having a significant disability, or were excluded from intervention based on their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Demographic characteristics for the analytic sample were as follows: 52% were female; 79% qualified for free or reduced-price lunch; 46% were African American, 12% White, 1% were Asian, and 40% were Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This study was part of a larger intervention research project that involved a professional development intervention for teachers. This study focuses on a Tier 2 level intervention for struggling readers. Eligible students assigned to the intervention condition were provided supplemental instruction in groups of 10 to 15 students by interventionists. Intervention sessions occurred daily for 50 minutes from September through May. The intervention was broken down into three phases of instruction. Phase 1, which lasted 7 to 8 weeks, emphasized oral reading fluency and advanced strategies for decoding words from the Reading Excellence: Word Attack & Rate Development Strategies (REWARDS) Intermediate curriculum (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2005). Phase 2 of the intervention, which lasted 17 to 18 weeks, emphasized vocabulary development and reading comprehension using the REWARDS Plus curriculum (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2005). Phase 3 of the intervention, which lasted 8 to 10 weeks, emphasized vocabulary development and reading comprehension using researcher-developed materials that focused on applying decoding and comprehension strategies to independent reading.
Comparison Group
Comparison students enrolled in the large school district received daily reading and English/language arts instruction for 90 minutes a day in two schools and 85 minutes every other day in the third school. Students enrolled in the two medium-sized school districts received English language arts instruction for 50 minutes each school day.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were provided with 60 hours of professional development prior to the start of the intervention and an additional 9 hours of professional development over the course of the school year as well as participating in biweekly staff development meetings and receiving regular on-site supervision and coaching. Intervention fidelity was monitored 2 to 3 times a month throughout the school year.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Teaching Vocabulary and Comprehension)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.
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).