An investigation of the effects of a prereading intervention on the early literacy skills of children at risk of emotional disturbance and reading problems.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzales, J. (2005). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 3–12. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ694462
-
examining18Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Stepping Stone to Literacy)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
24.49 |
19.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) - Initial Sounds Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
21.66 |
11.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words, Elision, and Sound Matching subsets |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
97.65 |
90.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
20.16 |
11.20 |
Yes |
|
|
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
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in elementary schools in a medium-sized Midwestern city.
Study sample
Students from kindergarten classrooms in seven elementary schools were screened for the study using a three-step process. In the first step, teachers classified each of their students as exhibiting either "externalizing behavior" or "internalizing behavior" using the Early Screening Project (Walker, Severson, and Feil, 1995). For each list of students, the teachers then ranked their students according to the degree of their behavior. In the second step, teachers completed the "Maladaptive Behavior" and the "Adaptive Behavior" scales on the "five highest externalizing and internalizing children" based on the first step. There were 42 students with scores of 60 or more on either of these scales that were eligible for study participation. In the third and final step, the 42 eligible students were assessed for phonological awareness and rapid naming using DIBELS test probes. This led to a total of 36 students who were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition or a control condition.
Intervention Group
Stepping Stones to Literacy is an intervention designed for children with at risk for reading problems. The scripted lessons include instructional prompts and activities. The lessons are given one-on-one with a student and trained tutor (the tutor training process includes 5 main steps) and last for about 10-20 minutes each. The Stepping Stones Lesson Book contains Lessons 1 - 25. During each daily lesson, children are instructed on the following pre-reading skills: (1) identification, manipulation, and memory of environmental sounds, (2) letter names, (3) sentence meanings, (4) phonological awareness, (5) phonemic awareness, and (6) serial processing or rapid naming.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received the standard reading instruction offered in their classrooms.
Support for implementation
The tutors implementing the intervention were trained by the authors in 5 main steps. In step 1, tutors were given the theory and rationale for the intervention. In step 2, the intervention activities were described and modeled for the tutors. In step 3, the tutors practiced the activities with each other. In step 4, the tutors were observed as they conducted lessons. In step 5, the tutors were observed and provided with corrective feedback during their first couple tutoring sessions.
Stepping Stones to Literacy Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2007
- 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Stepping Stones to Literacy.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
21.31 |
11.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
12.34 |
3.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
98.24 |
90.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
19.43 |
11.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. None |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
25.18 |
19.90 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 6%
Male: 94% -
- 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
Midwest
-
Race Asian 3% Black 28% White 61% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in seven elementary schools in a medium-sized Midwestern city.
Study sample
Forty-two kindergarten students with behavior problems were randomly assigned to either the intervention (Stepping Stones to Literacy) or the comparison condition. Three students who were performing at or above average with respect to phonological awareness skills were removed from each condition. Therefore, the analysis included 36 students (18 students per condition). Most of the participants were male students (17 males and one female in each condition). Minority students were 44% of the intervention group and 34% of the comparison group. The percentages of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch were 72% and 44% in the intervention and comparison groups, respectively. One student in each condition was an English language learner.
Intervention Group
Over a five-week period, intervention group students received Stepping Stones to Literacy as a supplement to the core curriculum (Open Court Reading and early literacy developmental activities designed by the classroom teachers). The Stepping Stones to Literacy program consisted of twenty-five 20-minute one-on-one daily tutoring lessons. According to reports by tutors and independent observers, the tutoring sessions were implemented with a high level of fidelity to the Stepping Stones to Literacy curriculum.
Comparison Group
Comparison group students received the core curriculum and no other supplemental instruction. The study indicated that no attempt was made to change any of the teachers’ regular instructional practices in the classroom.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome measures were the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Letter Naming Fluency, and Nonsense Words Fluency subtests (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Information on training of tutors was not reported in the study.
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.
-
Nelson, J. R., Cooper, P., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Stepping Stones to Literacy: What Works Clearinghouse submission. (Available from the Center for At-Risk Children's Services, 202 Barkley Center, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732).
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).