National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002 [SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. business as usual]
Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia (2006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491144
-
examining281Students, grade5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency Subtest: AIMSweb |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.90 |
96.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.20 |
90.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.60 |
92.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.40 |
95.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.80 |
87.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.00 |
88.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock Reading Master Tests - Revised |
SpellRead PAT plus Corrective Reading plus Wilson Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.40 |
91.50 |
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% -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 28% White 72%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 50 elementary schools located within 27 school districts outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Study sample
The sample was in fifth grade. The study sample was 28 percent Black and 72 percent White. Fifty-seven percent of the sample was male and 43 percent of the sample was female. Thirty-one percent of the sample had been diagnosed with a specific learning disability. Forty-six percent of the sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. In this review, the intervention condition combines three intervention groups from the study: Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.); Corrective Reading (decoding strand only); and Wilson Reading System® (word-level components only). Spell Read P.A.T. is a three-phased, explicit instruction program consisting of 140 sequential lessons. The program focuses on building phonemic awareness and phonics skills, and incorporates spelling into reading instruction. The Corrective Reading (decoding strand only) program consists of scripted lessons that provide instruction in word decoding and reading fluency. The Wilson Reading System® (word-level components only) is a 12-step program based on the Orton-Gillingham method that utilizes 10 principles on instruction and direct, multisensory teaching emphasizing word study, spelling, and fluency. The comprehension and vocabulary components of the Wilson Reading System® were excluded for the purposes of the study. Across all interventions, students met in small groups of three with a teacher for 50 minutes a day, 5 days a week, from the first week of November through the first weeks of May.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received typical reading instruction and interventions provided by their schools.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in approximately 70 hours of professional development.
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).