A longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled study on the accumulating effects of individualized literacy instruction on students’ reading from first through third grade
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Crowe, E. C., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). Psychological Science, 24(8), 1408-1419.
-
examining1,573Students, grades1-3
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Individualized Student Instruction (ISI))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Word Identification |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter-Word Identification |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter-Word Identification |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage comprehension |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passage comprehension |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passage comprehension |
Individualized Student Instruction (ISI) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Florida
-
Race Black 6% Other or unknown 13% White 81%
Study Details
Setting
Six schools were recruited for the study. These schools were located in north Florida. There was a total of 117 teachers included throughout the three year study.
Study sample
Specific characteristics regarding students in the sample were not reported. However, the study authors reported that the overall the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-priced lunches at the schools was 47%. Eighty-one percent of students were White, 6% Black, and 13% Other. All classroom teachers were certified following Florida requirements and 23% held at least a master's degree.
Intervention Group
ISI is an intervention that was designed to investigate whether there are any children characteristic and treatment interactions that would impact student reading outcomes. The ISI includes three components: 1. professional development, 2. assessment to instruction software (A2i), and 3. implementation in the classroom. Teachers received half-day workshops at the beginning of the school year that focused on reading and mathematics interventions. Additionally, teachers participated in monthly meetings, individual meetings as needed, and classroom based support every two weeks.
Comparison Group
Teachers in first grade who were assigned to the comparison condition were taught to use Math Pals as a supplement to their regular mathematics curriculum. Teachers in second and third grade were taught to provide 'specific types of researcher-developed mathematics activities for each student based on each students' mathematics skills" (pg. 6).
Support for implementation
Professional development occurred prior to the academic school year. Teachers in the intervention group received support throughout the academic year.
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).