Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Tier 2 Reading Instruction for First-Grade Students with a High Probability of Reading Failure
Case, Lisa; Speece, Deborah; Silverman, Rebecca; Schatschneider, Christopher; Montanaro, Elizabeth; Ritchey, Kristen (2014). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v7 n1 p28-53 2014. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030356
-
examining123Students, grades1-2
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.07 |
104.72 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
109.39 |
108.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Graphophonemic Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
34.00 |
33.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Spelling |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
43.78 |
43.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Spelling Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
45.35 |
45.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Graphophonemic Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.96 |
20.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Spelling Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
24.89 |
25.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.12 |
104.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.23 |
97.08 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Decodable Word Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.87 |
28.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
109.02 |
106.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passage Reading Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.46 |
87.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Passage Reading Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.32 |
34.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Identification Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.80 |
23.47 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Identification Fluency |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
62.84 |
59.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest |
Tier 2 Literacy Intervention (Case et al., 2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
100.04 |
98.35 |
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: 46%
Male: 54% -
Suburban, 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
Northeast
-
Race Black 11% Other or unknown 9% Two or more races 9% White 71% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included two cohorts of grade 1 students from parochial schools in a major mid-Atlantic city and nearby suburban communities.
Study sample
The study randomized 124 students at the beginning of grade 1. The analytic sample for grade 1, which was measured in spring of the school year, included 61 intervention and 62 comparison students. The grade 2 analytic sample included 54 students in the intervention group and 55 students in the comparison group. Fifty-four percent of students were male, 71 percent were White, 11 percent were Black, 9 percent were multiracial, and 9 percent were of another or unknown race. Across both years, the study included 25 teachers who volunteered to participate in the study.
Intervention Group
The Tier 2 reading intervention integrated the skills needed by struggling readers and recommended by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000), including phonemic awareness, word attack skills, spelling, sight word recognition, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. Specifically, 25 scripted lessons were developed by adapting published reading programs and evidence-based instructional methods. Tutors were instructed to follow the scripted lessons closely and to modify activities slightly to accommodate learners’ needs. The intervention occurred from January through March with three 40-minute sessions scheduled weekly, for approximately 12 weeks. Group size varied from two to four students per group; there were 22 groups in total. There were seven groups of two students, 13 groups of three students, and two groups of four students. Students in the intervention group also received Tier 1 reading instruction, which included Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual Tier 1 instruction, which included Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS).
Support for implementation
All participating teachers in the intervention and comparison conditions received Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) training. Each year, between September and November, teachers participated in a day-long professional development session to acquire, review, and practice the PALS components required for effective classroom implementation. Project staff observed teachers twice per year and obtained fidelity information to document PALS implementation. Observers used a standardized protocol based on the protocol designed by PALS developers to document implementation. Project staff met briefly with teachers or provided written feedback.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 1 Level |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
90.21 |
82.12 |
No |
-- |
|
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 2 Level |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.46 |
87.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.07 |
104.72 |
No |
-- |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.93 |
104.57 |
No |
-- |
|
TOWRE - Phonemic Decoding Fluency |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.59 |
97.08 |
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, Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study participants were first-grade students from parochial schools in a major mid-Atlantic city and nearby suburban communities.
Study sample
The school enrollment ranged from 166 to 715 students (Median = 483 students) in the participating schools. The median percentage of children eligible for free and reduced-priced meals at the school level was 5% (range = 0–75%). In the analysis sample, 54.1% were boys in the intervention group (54% in the comparison group); 14.8% were black in the intervention group (8.1% in the comparison group); 39.9% of the intervention students' mothers had a high school degree, (45.2% in the comparison group).
Intervention Group
The intervention period occurred from January through March. The intervention consisted of three 40-min sessions scheduled weekly, for approximately 12 weeks. The intervention was administered in groups and group size varied from two to four students per group. There were 22 groups in total and there were seven groups of two students, 13 groups of three students, and two groups of four students. The intervention used methods recommended by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Twenty five scripted lessons were developed from other reading programs and evidence-based instructional methods. Tutors followed the scripted lessons closely but were allowed to modify lessons slightly, when necessary, when students were struggling. Each lesson included three main components. First, there was 15 minutes of instruction on "building phonemic awareness and phonic skills through the introduction and reinforcement of letter-sound relationships." Then tutors provided 10 minutes of instruction "focusing on sight works, decodable works, vocabulary, and prereading comprehension strategies." Finally, in the last 15 minutes, students "participated in reading fluency and comprehension activities with timed reading, repeated choral reading, and discussion to build comprehension." Every fourth lesson the format changed where "instead of participating in choral and timed reading, students listened to one student read a decodable or leveled trade book and then the group read the text chorally."
Comparison Group
Students from the comparison group received Tier 1 instruction, which consisted of Peer Assisted Learning Strategies three times a week between November and April during first grade.
Support for implementation
Intervention tutors participated in a minimum of 20 hours of training. All participating teachers were provided with Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) training. Project staff observed teachers twice per year and obtained fidelity information to document PALS implementation. The authors also established treatment fidelity in several ways.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).