Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G., Gibbs, S. L., & Flowers, C. (2008). Exceptional Children, 75(1), 33-52.
-
examining23Students, gradesK-4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for Early Literacy Skills Builder)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment (NVLA): Total Score |
Early Literacy Skills Builder vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.55 |
63.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Early Literacy Skills Builder vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.82 |
18.42 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment: Conventions of Reading subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
17.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB): Total Score |
Early Literacy Skills Builder vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.45 |
15.58 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (WLPB): Memory for Sentences subtest |
Early Literacy Skills Builder vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.18 |
9.83 |
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.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
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
South
-
Race Black 52% Other or unknown 13% White 35%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in self-contained special education classrooms taught by special education teachers in a large urban school district in the southeast United States. The students were enrolled in grades kindergarten to 4.
Study sample
Students in the study had severe deficits in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, and were reading below first-grade level. In the intervention group, the majority of the students were male (63.6%) with a mean age of 9.36 years. The majority were African American (54.5%), and the remaining race categories were white (36.4% and other (9.1%). Over one fourth (27.3%) were eligible for free lunch. In the comparison group, half of the students were male (50%) with a mean age of 8.75 years. Half were African American (50%), and the remaining race categories were white (33.3% and other (16.7%). One fourth (25%) were eligible for free lunch.
Intervention Group
The Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) curriculum was developed for students with significant disabilities by adapting effective strategies for nondisabled students and making them responsive to the communication challenges faced by students with disabilities. ELSB includes five levels with five lessons at each level that introduce progressively more difficult skills. Lessons feature stories about a frog named "Moe." Teachers teach the curriculum to individual students or small groups of two to four students from October through May.Teachers could repeat each lesson on a 2-, 4-, or 10-day cycle depending on the pace of the group. Students spent an average of 18.49 minutes per day in ELSB.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received sight word or picture instruction using Edmark, a commercial sight word curriculum (Austin & Boekman, 1990), or sight words and pictures that related to the students’ needs and preferences. The sight word lessons also were implemented in either a 1:1 or small group format depending on the number of students assigned to this condition in the classroom.
Support for implementation
Teachers receive a scripted ELSB curriculum including directions, student response materials, and the story easel. Teachers participate in training on the curriculum's objectives, including a demonstration that follows the script, prompting, error correction procedures, and practice. Classroom observations are made using a task analysis of teacher and student behaviors for each objective and feedback is provided.
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).