Evaluating the Impact of a Multistrategy Inference Intervention for Middle-Grade Struggling Readers [Multi-strategy inference intervention vs. business as usual]
Barth, Amy E.; Elleman, Amy (2017). Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, v48 n1 p31-41. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1131134
-
examining61Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Barth & Elleman (2017)))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III): Reading comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Barth & Elleman (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
88.86 |
85.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-5) Comprehension |
Reading intervention (Barth & Elleman (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
12.73 |
10.69 |
No |
-- | |
|
Qualitative Reading Inventory-5 Retell |
Reading intervention (Barth & Elleman (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
1 Day |
Full sample;
|
11.35 |
11.28 |
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: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 36% Other or unknown 15% White 49% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 8% Not Hispanic or Latino 92%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention took place in a public middle school in the midwestern United States. The intervention was delivered to small groups of two to three students in a supplemental reading class.
Study sample
The sample included students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years old. Most students were White (48.5 percent), while 36.4 percent were Black, 7.6 percent were Hispanic, 1.5 percent were multiracial, and 1.5 percent were another race. Thirty percent of the sample were special education students. Fifty-three percent of the sample was male, and 47 percent was female.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention was implemented over the course of 2.5 weeks. The intervention consisted of 10 45-minute sessions for a total of 7.5 hours of instruction. During the intervention sessions, the intervention tutors employed a “multistrategy inference” intervention. During these sessions, students were instructed to pretend to be detectives solving crimes, and the overall theme of the intervention sessions involved detective-related concepts. During the first two sessions, students were taught to make inferences via scripted sessions delivered by tutors. In the third through tenth sessions, students were taught to identify and answer questions using inferential techniques. Inferences were made regarding texts students were reading, all relating to ancient Egypt. Tutors prompted students to use text clues for clarification, to activate and integrate prior knowledge, and to understand character perspective and author’s purposes. These techniques were used to improve reading comprehension.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group continued to participate in a supplemental business-as-usual reading class while the intervention was delivered. During the time that the intervention was ongoing, students read and then practiced and performed the play Pygmalion.
Support for implementation
The tutors who delivered the intervention participated in 10 hours of professional development before the intervention began, as well as five hours of professional development while the intervention was ongoing.
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).