A Randomized Experiment of a Mixed-Methods Literacy Intervention for Struggling Readers in Grades 4-6: Effects on Word Reading Efficiency, Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary, and Oral Reading Fluency [READ 180 vs. business as usual]
Kim, James S.; Samson, Jennifer F.; Fitzgerald, Robert; Hartry, Ardice (2010). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v23 n9 p1109-1129. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898468
-
examining264Students, grades4-6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for READ 180®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) |
READ 180® vs. After-school programs |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.33 |
92.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS): English language arts (ELA) |
READ 180® vs. After-school programs |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
232.53 |
232.50 |
No |
-- |
|
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) |
READ 180® vs. After-school programs |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
108.89 |
106.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word Efficiency subtests |
READ 180® vs. After-school programs |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.78 |
97.21 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Black 52% Other or unknown 26% White 22% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted from October 2005 to April 2006 in three elementary schools within a high-poverty school district located in southeastern Massachusetts. The intervention, a mixed-methods literacy intervention called READ 180, was administered during an hour-long after-school program to groups of randomly selected students in grades 4-6 who were identified as struggling readers prior to randomization.
Study sample
The authors provided sample characteristics for the full student sample at the time of randomization (which comprised 294 students), but not for the analytic sample. Of the sample at random assignment, 50 percent were male, 50 percent were female, 22 percent were White, 52 percent were Black, and 26 percent were of unknown race. Twenty-one percent of the sample at random assignment identified as Latino, 21 percent had a disability, and 81 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The study did not report the percentage of students that were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention administered in this study was the READ 180 program, a mixed-method approach to literacy instruction designed to help struggling readers in grades 4-12 improve their word reading efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. The program was administered to the students in the intervention group during an hour-long after-school session which occurred four days per week for 23 weeks from October 2005 to April 2006. The full 90-minute version of READ 180 begins with a 20-30 minute whole-group lesson followed by a breakout into small groups within which students participate in the following three 20-minute literacy activities: (1) individualized computer-assisted reading instruction with videos, leveled text, and word study activities, (2) independent and modeled reading practice with leveled books, and (3) teacher-directed reading lessons tailored to the reading level of each small group. For this study, the 90-minute READ 180 program was adapted to fit a 60-minute timeframe in order to accommodate the district’s after-school program schedule. This shorter version of the READ 180 program administered in the study only included the three 20-minute small-group activities (i.e. it did not include teacher-directed whole-group lessons).
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison condition participated in the district's 60-minute after-school program for which teachers were able to select from 16 different enrichment activities designed to improve student attendance. The district's after-school program included both literacy and non-literacy related activities with the amount of time devoted to a specific activity varying each day. Thus, the district after-school program did not specifically focus on improving reading. As such, the READ 180 program differed from the district after-school program because of its exclusive focus on improving student reading skills. Like the READ 180 program, the district after-school program was administered four days per week for 23 weeks from October 2005 to April 2006.
Support for implementation
The authors do not provide any information on support for implementation.
READ 180® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2016
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
96.46 |
96.88 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
96.48 |
97.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
96.62 |
97.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Overall Score |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
92.70 |
92.09 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
92.95 |
92.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
92.89 |
92.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) English Language Arts (ELA) assessment |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
232.65 |
232.17 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
111.00 |
107.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 4;
|
88.41 |
77.68 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6;
|
133.48 |
129.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5;
|
113.85 |
118.51 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Black 52% White 22% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79%
Study Details
Setting
The study included students in grades 4, 5, and 6 in three elementary schools in Brockton, Massachusetts. These three schools differed from the four schools studied in Fitzgerald and Hartry (2008).
Study sample
The baseline study sample was evenly distributed between students in grades 4, 5, and 6 (34.4%, 37.1%, 28.6%, respectively) and between girls and boys (50.3% and 49.7%, respectively). Over 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Just over a fifth (21.1%) of students in the baseline sample had disabilities, and over 75% were minority students (51.5% African American, 22.2% White, 20.8% Hispanic, and 5.5% other).
Intervention Group
The intervention group attended a 2-hour afterschool program 4 days per week for 23 weeks from October 2005 through April 2006. The first hour was dedicated to a snack and homework. The second hour was dedicated to READ 180®. In this study, the standard 90-minute READ 180® model (version 1.6) was shortened to 60 minutes to accommodate the district’s afterschool program. Teachers implemented three 20-minute rotations, but did not implement the whole-group lesson. The first rotation consisted of a 20-minute individualized computer-assisted READ 180® instruction, which included structured reading practice with videos, leveled text, and word reading and fluency activities. The rotation focused on a substantive area selected by the student. The second rotation consisted of independent reading of books that were matched to student’s Lexile level. The third rotation consisted of small-group teacher-directed lessons that were tailored to the reading level of the students in each group.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was also implemented 4 days per week over 23 weeks from October 2005 through April 2006. Like the intervention group, the first hour of the comparison condition’s afterschool program was dedicated to a snack and homework. The second hour included both literacy and non-literacy activities; however, the amount of time dedicated to these activities varied each day. Teachers were instructed to implement activities that encouraged attendance in the afterschool program. Each teacher was provided with a selection of 16 activities, including informal art-based projects, games, and commercially-developed materials for afterschool programs in various subject areas (e.g., astronomy, history, geography, space exploration, math, or literacy). The teachers had flexibility in choosing and tailoring which activities to use.
Support for implementation
Classrooms were observed twice during the study period and rated from 1 to 3 (low to high fidelity to the intervention). Ratings ranged from 2.9–3 in observations at the beginning of the intervention period and from 2.3–2.8 in observations at the end of the intervention period.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Hartry, A., Fitzgerald, R., & Porter, K. (2008). Implementing a structured reading program in an afterschool setting: problems and potential solutions. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 181–210.
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).