Improvement in Reading Rate under Independent and Difficult Text Levels: Influences on Word and Comprehension Skills [Reading aloud difficult text vs. business as usual]
O'Connor, Rollanda E.; Swanson, H. Lee; Geraghty, Cathleen (2010). Journal of Educational Psychology, v102 n1 p1-19 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ876298
-
examining43Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Analytic Reading Inventory-Primary-Level Passage |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.48 |
64.78 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Reading Inventory-Grade 1 Passage |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
70.01 |
50.47 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Analytic Reading Inventory-Grade 2 Passages |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.65 |
55.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fluency |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.76 |
22.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Comprehension |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.37 |
14.26 |
No |
-- | |
|
WRMT-R - Passage Comprehension subtest |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.86 |
14.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
51.49 |
47.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Master Test, Revised - Word Attack |
Practice reading aloud difficult text—O'Connor et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.69 |
17.56 |
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.
-
21% English language learners -
- 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
West
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in five schools within a school district in the southwestern U.S. The two interventions involved one-on-one instruction between a student and an adult listener.
Study sample
The students were from a school district in the southwestern U.S. and 21% of the study sample were English learners.
Intervention Group
(1) There are two interventions: one involved practice reading aloud with independent reading level passages and the other involves reading aloud with or difficult level passages of text. (2) For the study, participants in the intervention groups received 15 minutes of practice reading aloud to a trained adult listener three times per week for 20 weeks. (3) Participants in the Independent group read fiction and nonfiction books where they are expected to have word reading accuracy in the range of 92% to 100% correct. (4) Participants in the Difficult group read fiction and nonfiction books where they are expected to have word reading accuracy in the range of 80% to 90% correct. (5) Although there is no mention of a formative assessment, reading materials were changed if they were found to be too easy or too difficult based on the student's condition. (6) The reading materials were also selected based on student interest. (7) The students' accuracy was checked at least once a week to insure compliance with the "independent" and "difficult" reading levels. (8) The trained adult listeners would pronounce and/or define words the students could not read, but did not offer any specific decoding strategies for the words. (9) There is no mention of scripted components or a home component.
Comparison Group
(1) The comparison condition was business as usual (no intervention). (2) All schools involved in the study used Houghton Mifflin Reading: A Legacy of Literacy series as the reading curriculum.
Support for implementation
The tests were administered by doctoral students who were blind to study condition of the students. The adult listeners who administered the interventions were trained by the lead author in a 2 hour session. These tutors were observed by the lead author and doctoral students during the first two treatment days and were corrected for errors in their implementation of the interventions. Tutors were observed once a week for the remainder of the study.
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).