Balanced, Strategic Reading Instruction for Upper-Elementary and Middle School Students with Reading Disabilities: A Comparative Study of Two Approaches [Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. business as usual]
Manset-Williamson, Genevieve; Nelson, Jason M. (2005). Learning Disability Quarterly, v28 n1 p59. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ710417
-
examining20Students, grades4-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)))
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005) |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Comprehension;
|
6.30 |
7.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Comprehension ;
|
77.22 |
75.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Retell Quality (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005) |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Comprehension;
|
2.90 |
4.10 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Main Idea (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005) |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Intervention;
|
0.90 |
1.40 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Comprehension;
|
88.70 |
84.80 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Manset-Williamson & Nelson (2005)) vs. (Not applicable) |
0 Days |
Full sample: Guided Reading vs. Explicit Comprehension ;
|
71.89 |
70.10 |
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: 15%
Male: 85% -
- 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
Indiana
-
Race Black 15% White 85%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a community-based clinic located in two separate schools: one independent/private school for students with reading disabilities and a Title 1 public elementary school. The intervention was implemented in classrooms or in the public school library. The study authors state the intervention was a collaboration between Indiana University and the schools in the study to provide reading services to students with reading disabilities in the community. Therefore, students who attended the clinic and received the intervention were from the local community and did not necessarily attend either of the two schools.
Study sample
The 20 students in the final sample were 9 to 14 years old (M = 11 years, 6 months; SD = 1 year, 5 months). Eighty-five percent of students were male, 15% of students were female, 15% of students were Black, 85% of students were White, 0% of students were English language learners, and 5% of students were formally diagnosed with ADHD.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The one-on-one tutoring program was done 4 days per week for 1 hour per day (20 hours total) at the beginning of summer break and lasted 6 weeks, including 1 week of pre- and post-testing, for a total of 5 weeks of intervention. Both treatment conditions included the same training in phonological awareness/analysis, strategic decoding, and reading fluency (Phonemic Awareness/Analysis, Decoding, and Fluency Instruction [PDF]). However, the two conditions differed on the reading comprehension component. In the intervention condition, Guided Reading (PDF/GR), tutors heavily modeled specific reading comprehension strategies including predication, summarization, and question generation during each one-on-one session with students. Tutors assumed that students would “naturally pick up” on those strategies and begin to use them independently (p. 66).
Comparison Group
Like the PDF/GR condition, the Explicit Comprehension (PDF/EC) intervention, which served as the comparison group, was also implemented over the summer break for a period of 6 weeks with 1 week spent on pre- and post-testing. The comparison intervention included all components provided in the PDF/GR condition but differed in the delivery of the reading comprehension strategies. Rather than relying solely on modeling and introducing reading comprehension strategies, tutors provided direct instruction of each strategy. The PDF/EC condition included explicit instruction of the self-regulatory procedures, explicit explanation of the reasoning behind using strategies, explicit feedback on the value of strategy use in aiding comprehension, and explicit transfer of control of strategy use from teacher to student. Students received tutoring 4 days per week, for 1 hour per day, for a total of 20 hours.
Support for implementation
Tutors attended 14 hours of direct training on how to implement the treatment conditions. Tutors were observed for fidelity of implementation at least twice by one of the principal investigators and were provided corrective feedback after observation. There were also weekly staff meetings attended by the tutors and at least one of the principal investigators. Principal investigators observed tutors as adhering to the treatment protocol 93% of the time.
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).