Severe Reading Difficulties--Can They Be Prevented? A Comparison of Prevention and Intervention Approaches [Remedial assistance vs. comparison]
Scanlon, Donna M.; Vellutino, Frank R.; Small, Sheila G.; Fanuele, Diane P.; Sweeney, Joan M. (2005). Exceptionality, v13 n4 p209-227 2005. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ722558
-
examining319Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005))
- 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 Sounds Raw Score |
Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
22.14 |
19.26 |
Yes |
|
|
|
WRMT-R/NU Letter Identification |
Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
97.10 |
95.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High Frequency Word ID Raw Score |
Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
6.49 |
4.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test -Revised (WRMT-R): Basic Skills Cluster |
Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
80.01 |
75.63 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Primary Decoding Raw Score |
Remedial assistance for severe reading difficulties—Scanlon et al. (2005) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
6.07 |
5.04 |
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
New York
Study Details
Setting
Intervention was provided in small group settings (three children per one teacher).
Study sample
Students were identified as poor readers, but there is no indication that they had disabilities or were classified as English learners.
Intervention Group
The kindergarten intervention was a remedial assistance program provided to children in small groups (three children to one teacher). As part of the intervention, the teacher focused on emergent literacy skills, which included: reading to and with children, phonemic awareness, letter name and letter-sound knowledge, and writing. The program was provided from mid-October until early June. Each session lasted for 30 minutes and all of the children within a small group came from the same classroom. The goals for the kindergarten intervention were: 1. Motivation to read and write 2. Phoneme awareness 3. Letter identification 4. Letter-sound association 5. Alphabetic principle 6. Print awareness 7. Print conventions 8. Whole word identification
Comparison Group
Business as usual and in some cases, this included extra assistance. The specific type of assistance available to comparison students varied by district. The authors noted that several schools opted to provide comparison students with considerable assistance with early literacy skills.
Support for implementation
The authors provided staff with a 5-day training workshop. Following this training, the authors provided bimonthly group meetings and one-to-one supervision meetings, which occurred every 6 to 8 weeks.
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).