Effects of tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders.
Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D. Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 633–648. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1054506
-
examining71Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
48.75 |
47.32 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates Passage Comprehension |
Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.86 |
13.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
WJ III Passage Comprehension |
Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.85 |
86.92 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WJ III Basic Reading |
Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
95.72 |
90.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
TOWRE - Test of Word Reading Efficiency |
Individualized, intensive Tier 3 reading intervention—Denton et al. (2013) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.45 |
85.60 |
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
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in 10 elementary schools (52 classrooms) in the southwest region of the United States. Four of those schools were near a small city, and the remainder were in a large urban school district. The areas were separated by approximately 150 miles. 103 students across these 10 schools were randomized within schools to either the intervention or comparison group, though only 72 students remained in the study.
Study sample
The sample characteristics were reported separately for the intervention and comparison group, who had a mean age of 7.8 and 7.7 years respectively. Following are additional details about each group. The analytic intervention sample included 47 students; 51% were female, 28% African American, 57% were Hispanic, 13% were white, and 2% were American Indian. Of students in the analytic intervention sample, 79% were eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch; 31% were in special education (though data were missing for two students); 30% were classified as limited English proficiency, 21% were repeating first grade; and 43% were in the urban school district. Among those assigned to the comparison group, 44% were female, 48% were African American, 36% were Hispanic, 16% were white, and no students were American Indian. 84% of students in the comparison condition were eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch, 35% were in special education, 28% were classified as having limited English proficiency, 4% were repeating first grade, and 48% were in the urban school district.
Intervention Group
Over the course of 24-26 weeks students in the intervention group met in groups of two or three for daily sessions, with each session lasting 45 minutes, in addition to their regular in-class reading instruction. The intervention was primarily based on "Responsive Reading Instruction," a flexible toolkit of supplemental reading activities for early grades. To this program activities were added that targeted spelling and reading multi-syllable words. For students who required additional fluency assistance, an adaptation of "Read Naturally" was also used. Those administering the intervention had a wide range of activities to choose from. Their choices were guided by results from the DIBELS ORF exam, administered every four weeks to all students in the study, and from daily assessments administered to a subset of intervention students. Teachers were taught to use assessment results to guide instruction, and received ongoing coaching to assist in this. Eight students in the intervention group also received supplemental reading instruction from their schools, though these weren't "comprehensive" supplemental reading services. This supplemental instruction was considered "typical school practice" (p. 12).
Comparison Group
The comparison group condition was the business-as-usual condition. Comparison group students, like intervention students, received regular classroom learning instruction. DIBELS ORF results were provided to regular classroom teachers for all students, and teachers were taught how to interpret the results. As part of regular school practice, 16 students in the comparison group received supplemental reading instruction, such as tutoring and small-group lessons.
Support for implementation
Researcher selected interventionists participated in 18 hours of training prior to the intervention, 6 hours of training half way through the year, weekly professional development early in the intervention followed by bi-weekly professional development that in sum was approximately 22 hours.
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).