How does independent practice of multiple-criteria text influence the reading performance and development of second graders? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 3–14.
Cheatham, J. P., Allor, J. H., & Roberts, J. K. (2014). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1021050
-
examining62Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Multiple criteria text—Cheatham et al. (2014))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, but the randomization was compromised.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TOWRE - Phonemic Decoding Fluency |
Multiple criteria text—Cheatham et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Developing decoders;
|
22.41 |
21.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency |
Multiple criteria text—Cheatham et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Advanced decoders;
|
61.78 |
62.36 |
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.
-
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
West
-
Race Asian 4% Black 29% Other or unknown 26% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 26% Not Hispanic or Latino 74%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at one school in a large urban school district in the southwestern United States. Four second-grade classrooms within the school participated in the study.
Study sample
The average age in the intervention group was 7.28 and 7.18 in the comparison group. 29% of the randomized sample was African American, 25.8% were Hispanic, 40.3% were white, and 4.8% were Asian. Demographic statistics are not provided for the analytic sample.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition occurred during the students' daily independent reading time for 10 weeks. Independent reading time was scheduled to last half an hour, but the within-classroom average varied quite bit across classrooms from 16 minutes per session to 29 minutes per session. Intervention students were tested prior to the intervention and every two weeks to determine their reading level. During their independent reading time, intervention students were allowed to select from a set of books appropriate to their reading level. These books were designed for the study, emphasized high degrees of decodability, and gradually and systematically introduced high-frequency words that aren't readily decodable. Irregular words were included to help the stories seem more engaging and icons were printed below to help students with these harder words. The books used varying sentence structure so students wouldn't memorize their patterns.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition also included daily independent reading time. However, comparison students selected from a different set of books based on their reading ability. The authors document difference in comparison and intervention group books, noting that comparison group books had higher Critical Word Factor (CWF) scores, where CWF measures the frequency of non-decodable words.
Support for implementation
Teachers were provided with instructions for completing daily logs that recorded student absences and time spent reading. All students were provided bookmarks that included tips for decoding.
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).