Reorganizing the Instructional Reading Components: Could There Be a Better Way to Design Remedial Reading Programs to Maximize Middle School Students with Reading Disabilities' Response to Treatment? [Reading intervention 1 vs. Reading intervention 2 (Calhoon et al. (2010))]
Calhoon, Mary Beth; Sandow, Alexia; Hunter, Charles V. (2010). Annals of Dyslexia, v60 n1 p57-85. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891056
-
examining60Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral reading fluency (ORF): Calhoon et al. (2010) |
Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Additive vs. Alternating;
|
109.50 |
91.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Fluency Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Additive vs. Alternating;
|
82.89 |
83.28 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test |
Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Additive vs. Alternating;
|
89.58 |
80.03 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Additive vs. Alternating;
|
95.60 |
84.06 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Additive vs. Alternating;
|
100.70 |
92.72 |
Yes |
-- |
|
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: 35%
Male: 65% -
Suburban
-
- 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 Asian 12% Black 32% Other or unknown 19% White 37% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at two middle schools in a southeastern U.S. school district. Instruction for all modules took place during students’ daily 70-minute special education resource language arts class period.
Study sample
Student participants were in middle school (sixth to eighth grades) with reading disabilities and on average approximately 12 years old. The Alternating intervention group was 37.9 percent female and the Additive group was 32.3 percent female. The Alternating intervention group was 20.7 percent Hispanic, 37.9 percent White, 24.1 percent African American, and 17.2 percent Asian; and the Additive group was 19.4 percent Hispanic, 35.5 percent White, 38.7 percent African American, and 6.5 percent Asian. A majority of students in the Alternating, Integrated, and Additive groups were in sixth grade (51.7 percent, 46.7 percent, and 58.1 percent, respectively), and smaller percentages were in the seventh and eighth grades. In the Alternating group, five students (17.2 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest of the students had not been retained. In the Additive group, one student (3.2 percent) had been retained for two years, 11 students (35.5 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest (19 students, 61.3 percent) had not been retained. In the Alternating group, 14 students (48.3 percent) had attended two schools, 14 students (48.3 percent) had attended three or four schools, and 1 student (3.4 percent) had attended between five and eight schools. In the Additive group, 12 students (38.7 percent) had attended two schools, 12 students (38.7 percent) had attended three or four schools, and seven students (22.6 percent) had attended five to eight schools. Fifty-five percent of students had a specific learning disability and 1.67 percent had emotional disturbance. Of the six teachers, five teachers were female and one was male. Five teachers were White, and one was African American. The mean age of the teachers was 51.22 years (SD=3.52, range 48-57); and the mean number of years teaching was 8.88 years (SD=4.04, range 3-13 years). One teacher was teaching on a special education emergency license, one had a bachelor’s degree, three had master’s degrees, and one had an Ed.S. degree in education.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention condition was the Additive component of the Reading Achievement Multi-Modular Program (RAMP-UP). RAMP-UP is an expansion of the Linguistics Skills Training program (LST)/Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program. RAMP-UP incorporates small group sizes, directed questioning and responses, guided practice, explicit and direct instruction, extended practice opportunities with feedback, breaking down tasks into component parts, reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, and contextual reading. Instruction took place during the student’s daily 70-min special education resource language arts class period. The intervention duration was 45 minutes per day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks. The Additive module focuses on developing automaticity of core linguistic skills and provides up-front isolated linguistics skill instruction. The Additive module is comprised of three 7-week segments and one 5-week segment, where the first segment addresses isolated linguistics skill instruction. The second segment adds spelling instruction; and the third segment adds fluency instruction. During the fourth segment, comprehension instruction is added and linguistic skill instruction is discontinued.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition is the Alternating component of RAMP-UP, which is comprised of linguistics skill instruction in isolation 3 days a week alternated with comprehension instruction in isolation 2 days a week, for each week of implementation. Instruction occurred 45 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks.
Support for implementation
Before the study began, the teachers participated in a 2-day workshop that focused on the instructional components (linguistics, spelling, fluency, and comprehension). During the first training session, teachers were taught peer-mediated procedures for the components and used role-playing techniques to practice. Then, the structure and content of each component were taught. An additional 33 hours of training was provided throughout the 26 weeks of implementation to support the teaching of linguistics skills and spelling. Graduate research assistants (GRAs) provided ongoing support by participating in 90 percent of all lessons, helping monitor students during lesson implementation, and providing corrective feedback.
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).