Effects of Supplemental Reading Interventions in Authentic Contexts: A Comparison of Kindergarteners' Response
Simmons, Deborah C.; Coyne, Michael D.; Hagan-Burke, Shanna; Kwok, Oi-man; Simmons, Leslie; Johnson, Caitlin; Zou, Yuanyuan; Taylor, Aaron B.; McAlenney, Athena Lentini; Ruby, Maureen; Crevecoeur, Yvel C. (2011). Exceptional Children, v77 n2 p207-228 Win 2011. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918891
-
examining206Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Early Reading Intervention (ERI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized control trial with cluster level inferences and joiners, but it demonstrates baseline equivalence.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Written Spelling-4 |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.33 |
1.76 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Letter sound checklist |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.18 |
22.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Letter name checklist |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.23 |
25.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.27 |
26.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Sound-Matching |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.79 |
9.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.73 |
10.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Normative Update, Word Attack subtest |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
109.70 |
105.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.17 |
22.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.23 |
3.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Normative Update, Word Identification subtest |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.85 |
103.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.34 |
8.10 |
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
Connecticut, Texas
-
Race Black 20% Other or unknown 40% White 40% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four schools in South-Central Texas and eight schools in Eastern Connecticut. Researchers selected these schools because they typically provided supplemental instruction to children with reading difficulties. The intervention took place outside of the normal classroom setting but during the regular school day in groups of three to five.
Study sample
All but one of the schools had Title I status. Kindergarten students participating in the study had below-average reading ability and were identified through an extensive screening process that involved being nominated by classroom teachers and receiving standardized test scores within a predetermined range. The students in the study were approximately 40% Hispanic or Latino, 40% white, and 20% black or African American. About 10% received special education services, 25% were classified as bilingual or English language learners, and the mean age was 5.5 years. Interventionists were sometimes the classroom teachers and sometimes other educators. Interventionists were primarily white and female and spoke English as a primary language. They had a mean of about 13 years of teaching experience.
Intervention Group
The Early Reading Intervention (ERI) program consisted of 126 daily 30-minute lessons administered five days per week. Each lesson consisted of many short activities and was split evenly between phonological awareness and writing/spelling skills. The program consisted of four parts: I. 42 lessons that teach names and sounds of 11 letters. II. 30 lessons that teach blending and segmenting phonemes, and also introduce five additional letters. III. 24 lessons that teach word decoding and six additional letters. IV. 30 lessons that teach reading sentences in the context of storybooks. - The intervention does not have a home component. - A teacher or other professional implements the intervention outside of the normal classroom setting. The interventionist is sometimes the students' normal classroom teacher. - No specific list of materials is described in the study. - The intervention is scripted and includes detailed information on how the teacher introduces the new information.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition consisted of reading instruction in a similar setting as the ERI intervention. Researchers asked the teachers to provide beginning reading instruction typical of that school. Teachers sometimes used commercial materials and sometimes developed their own. 46% of teachers reported using some commercial materials, including Saxon Phonics, SRA/Open Court, Harcourt, Lindamood Bell, Lindamood Bell and Fountas and Pinnell combinations, and Foundations. Students in the comparison condition, also in groups of three to five, met with teachers for an equal length of time for an equal number of days.
Support for implementation
Teachers implementing ERI were trained in two one-day sessions, one before the beginning of the intervention and one halfway through. Trainees viewed videos developed by the published and practiced instructional techniques with feedback from trainers. No information is provided on who performed the training. Comparison teachers do not receive any training as part of the study, but they may have participated in their school's normal professional development activities. The researchers evaluated the fidelity of implementation of ERI through classroom observations. There is no indication whether the interventionists received feedback after these classroom visits.
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).