Annual Evaluation Report for the Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention Pilot Program Pilot Year 2, 2016-17 School Year
Kuchle, Laura; Brown, Seth; Coukoulis, Nicholas (2018). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582923
-
examining2,736Students, gradesK-1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2018
- Grant Competition (findings for Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Cohort 2 - Grade: K - Pilot Year 2;
|
58.20 |
54.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Cohort 2 - Grade:K - Pilot Year 2;
|
47.30 |
42.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 - Grade: K, Pilot Year 1;
|
57.60 |
54.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 - Grade: K - Pilot Year 1;
|
54.80 |
55.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Years |
Cohort 2 - Grade:K - Pilot Year 2;
|
54.40 |
55.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) - Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) - Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) |
Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 - Grade:K - Pilot Year 1;
|
44.40 |
45.80 |
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
Elementary schools located in the state of Pennsylvania were included in the study. Schools had to have kindergarten levels.
Intervention Group
The study examines the effectiveness of the classroom program portion of the Pennsylvania Dyslexia Screening and Early Literacy Intervention Pilot Program. The study compared student outcomes between those participating in the pilot and those in the comparison group. The classroom program provided kindergarten and first grade teachers as well as designated interventionists with focused professional development on classroom instruction, materials, around the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) Modules 1-3.
Comparison Group
The comparison group continued business as usual.
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).