Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children.
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., Silverman, R., Ritchey, K. D., Schatschneider, C., Cooper, D. H., … Jacobs, D. (2010). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(5), 402–417. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ896983
-
examining30Students, grade1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Small group reading intervention—Case et al. (2010))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decoding Word Fluency |
Small group reading intervention—Case et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.60 |
8.67 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Small group reading intervention—Case et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.80 |
5.13 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Small group reading intervention—Case et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.33 |
21.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Identification Fluency |
Small group reading intervention—Case et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.33 |
7.73 |
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.
-
Suburban
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in three non-Title 1 public schools located in a large, suburban mid-Atlantic school district.
Study sample
All students in the sample were reading below grade level. The three schools represented in the sample have between 22% and 37% of their students qualify for free and reduced priced lunch.
Intervention Group
This un-named short term tutoring intervention was administered by three graduate student tutors with a range of 2 to 7 years of experience in classroom teaching. These tutors received 25 hours of training on assessment and instruction related to the intervention prior to implementing the intervention. The tutors were instructed to follow the 24 scripted lessons, with minimal allowance for deviation from the scripts. These lessons were a combination of published reading programs and research-based instructional methods, and the lessons were intended to focus on phonemic awareness, word attack skills, spelling, sight-word recognition, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Instruction was delivered to small groups of three to four children. Tutors used the first series from the "Learn to Read Program" (Pro-Ed) as well as "Dr. Maggie's Phonics Readers: A new View" and "Dolch Basic Words". Each lesson contained three main parts: 1) a 15-minute portion focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics skills, and letter-sound relationships (adapted from "Fundations" by Wilson Language Training, 2002, and Peer Assisted Learning Strategies from Fuchs and colleagues); 2) a ten-minute portion focusing on sight words, decodable words, vocabulary and prereading comprehension strategies; and 3) 15 minute portion focusing on reading fluency and comprehension activities with timed reading, repeated choral reading, and comprehension discussion. Every fourth lesson this format changed, so that instead of choral and timed reading, students listened to an individual student read a decodable and leveled trade book and then the group read the text chorally. Phonics activities from "Fundations" included the Echo Find Word requiring students to repeat a word expressed by the tutor and then use magnetic letters and boards to create the correct letter sequence. The sight word recognition and vocabulary portion of the tutoring sequence was adapted from "Fundations" program and Denton and Hochers (2005) Responsive Reading Instruction. Some of the activities included skywriting and repeated spelling practice to learn sight works. Irregular words that were to be encountered in text were discussed briefly as well. Students performed "prereading" of the selected text by thinking about the title and a picture from the text. For reading fluency, monitoring, and comprehension, reading of the text began with "first timing" or an activity where students attempted to read as many selected words from the text passage as possible within one minute (activity adapted from "Read Naturally" (Ihnot, 2002). Tutors then led students through three choral readings of the passage. Tutors read through the passage slowly at first, stopping a challenging words for decoding practice. At the end of the three choral readings, students did a "final timing" where they were again presented the list of words from the passage and asked to read as many as they could in one minute. Time permitting, students graphed their scores. Tutors then led students to reconsider their earlier predictions and discuss whether their predictions were confirmed. Further discussion of the story wrapped up the comprehension portion of the tutoring lesson.
Comparison Group
Students randomly assigned to the control condition received their normal two hour reading instruction.
Support for implementation
The three tutors received 25 hours of pre-implementation training. Moreover, each tutoring session was recorded. Primary investigators assessed fidelity of implementation and determined that mean fidelity across lessons was 90%.
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).