Paraeducator-Supplemented Instruction in Structural Analysis with Text Reading Practice for Second and Third Graders at Risk for Reading Problems [Randomized controlled trial]
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A.; Peyton, Julia A. (2006). Remedial and Special Education, v27 n6 p365-378 Nov-Dec 2006. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ758877
-
examining21Students, grades2-3
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test - Revised (WRAT-R): Words spelled |
Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
82.50 |
84.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading fluency |
Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
94.40 |
78.10 |
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): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.90 |
92.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Accuracy (Composite of WRAT-R reading subtest; WRMT-R/NU Word Identification; and WRMT-R/NU Word Attack) |
Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
95.40 |
91.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word Efficiency subtests |
Paraeducator-supplemented instruction—Vadasy et al. (2006) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.20 |
87.10 |
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.
-
24% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48%
Study Details
Setting
Five schools in a large, northwestern school district participated in the study. Students in the intervention condition received 30 minutes of individual tutoring, 4 days per week. Three of the students in the intervention group were tutored during the classroom reading block, 5 were tutored during non-reading activities, and 3 were tutored during other classroom activities.
Study sample
Students were in second and third grades; 48% were male, 53% were minority, and 43% were eligible for Title 1, and 24% were ELL.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received 30 minutes of individual tutoring that was delivered four days a week for 20 weeks. Each session consisted of two equal sections: (1) word-level skills and instruction and structural analysis and (2) oral reading practice. Students were provided with grade-level reading materials. The tutors that delivered the intervention were recruited from the community specifically for this study. Tutors were provided with a script. During the first half of the 20 week intervention, tutors reviewed letter-sound correspondences, which included word reading and spelling. During the latter half of the intervention, tutors helped students practice reading and spelling of inflected, affixed, and multi-syllable words with more heavily scripted lessons.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business as usual reading instruction.
Support for implementation
Tutors received 3 hours of initial training, which introduced and modeled instructional procedures and they were taught how to supervise tutor practice on each lesson component. Training also included explicit correction procedures as well as scaffolding suggestions. Tutors received ongoing training and coaching for an average of 60-90 minutes of individual on-site training.
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).