A (pan-Canadian) cluster randomized control effectiveness trial of the ABRACADABRA web-based literacy program.
Savage, R., Piquette, N., Deleveaux, G., Abrami, P. C., Wood, E., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., & Burgos, G. (2013). Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 310–328. doi:10.1037/a0031025. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1007934
-
examining74Classes, gradesK-2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for ABRACADABRA)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.59 |
20.63 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation: Listening Comprehension |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.66 |
15.57 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Subtest |
ABRACADABRA vs. None |
0 Days |
Grade: 1, 2;
|
35.80 |
38.32 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.56 |
9.48 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.18 |
27.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Sentence Comprehension Subtest |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1, 2;
|
9.41 |
9.26 |
No |
-- | |
|
DIBELS Reading Retell Fluency Subtest |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1, 2;
|
12.24 |
12.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fry Words |
ABRACADABRA vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.22 |
11.53 |
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.
-
- 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
International
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in 74 classrooms across three provinces in Canada: Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta. Kindergarten, first grade, and second grade classrooms were included in the sample.
Study sample
The sample was split with 316 kindergarten students (154 treatment, 162 comparison), 616 first graders (352 treatment, 264 comparison), and 135 second graders (43 treatment and 92 comparison). The sample had 543 female students (284 treatment and 259 comparison) and 265 male students (265 treatment and 259 comparison). Across both groups, the average age was 73.69 months. The study did not exclude any students because of language issues or exceptionalities. The authors do not provide further information about whether there are any English learners or special education students in the sample.
Intervention Group
The ABRACADABRA program is a web-based software that has 32 activities and 17 stories. The program was integrated into the existing classroom activities. The intervention was implemented for two hours a week for 10 to 12 weeks. The research team encouraged a 1 hour format for teachers to implement: 10 minutes of word-level work (which included letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and word building); 10 minutes of text-level work (which focused on: (1) fluency activities on high frequency words, reading accurately and with expression, choral reading; and (2) comprehension activities that asked students to make predictions about story outcomes, understand and recognize story elements, creating summaries of text, vocabulary, and writing. These activities utilized the stories within the ABRACADABRA software); 20 minutes of collaborative work (which supported student collaboration to practice the skills learned during the word-level and text-level work--and it did not need to be done at the computer. A sample of an activity during this time would be asking students to write an alternate endings for stories they had read earlier in the sessions with a partner); and 20 minutes of extension activities (which gave students the opportunity to apply what they had learned further. For example, if they read a story about fruit, the students may be asked to draw fruit and label them).
Comparison Group
Classrooms in the comparison condition continued their "business as usual" English language arts lessons.
Support for implementation
Teachers in the treatment classrooms were given a 1 day training on the ABRACADABRA program prior to implementation. Teachers were supported by research assistants in their classrooms, who were called upon the most during the initial implementation.
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).