National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002
Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia (2006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491144
-
examining108Students, grade3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study took place near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Intervention Group
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) program with groups of 3 students. The intervention had three phases: (1) letter names and sounds; (2) blending and two-syllable words; and (3) beginning and ending sounds and multisyllabic words. All phases incorporated shared reading and writing activities. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily for 7 months.
Comparison Group
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., . . . Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I, final report: Volume 2. Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Corrective Reading)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study took place near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Intervention Group
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the decoding strand of the Corrective Reading curriculum for groups of 3 students. The lessons focused on word identification and oral reading fluency. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily over 7 months.
Comparison Group
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., . . . Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I, final report: Volume 2. Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Spell Read PAT v. Failure Free Reading)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Spell Read PAT v. Failure Free Reading vs. Failure Free Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Spell Read PAT v. Failure Free Reading vs. Failure Free Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Spell Read PAT v. Failure Free Reading vs. Failure Free Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Spell Read PAT v. Failure Free Reading vs. Failure Free Reading |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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
Pennsylvania
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Intervention Group
Teachers implemented 140 lessons from the Spell Read PAT program with groups of 3 students. The intervention had three phases: (1) letter names and sounds; (2) blending and two-syllable words; and (3) beginning and ending sounds and multisyllabic words. All phases incorporated shared reading and writing activities. The intervention involved 55-minute sessions daily for 7 months.
Comparison Group
Teachers implemented Failure Free Reading with individual students. The intervention combined computer-based lessons, workbook exercises, and teacher-led instruction on sight-word reading, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., . . . Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I, final report: Volume 2. Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
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).