Defining Summer Gain among Elementary Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities
Reed, Deborah K.; Aloe, Ariel M.; Reeger, Adam J.; Folsom, Jessica Sidler (2019). Exceptional Children, v85 n4 p413-431 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1219248
-
examining979Students, grades1-4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Reading Success Probability |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 1;
|
40.70 |
24.90 |
Yes |
|
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Reading Success Probability |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 4;
|
24.80 |
15.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Reading Success Probability |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
44.70 |
37.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Reading Success Probability |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
22.60 |
27.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Word Reading |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 1;
|
475.10 |
404.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Word Reading |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
558.60 |
541.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Word Recognition |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
280.60 |
326.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Syntactic Knowledge |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
334.10 |
348.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Reading Comprehension |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
326.70 |
332.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Following Directions |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
593.30 |
562.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Following Directions |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 1;
|
488.60 |
470.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Vocabulary Pairs |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 1;
|
470.70 |
460.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Vocabulary Pairs |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
562.70 |
560.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Reading Assessment for Prescriptive Instructional Data (RAPID): Vocabulary Knowledge |
Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
367.00 |
378.10 |
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.
-
28% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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 17% Other or unknown 30% White 54% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 50% No FRPL 50%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a summer bridge program in a midwestern public school district. Participating students were in Grades K-4 in public elementary schools. The summer program was conducted at two of the 11 elementary schools within the district; children in the intervention group were drawn from all 11 schools and participated at the school nearest their home.
Study sample
Researchers identified students experiencing difficulties in reading for participation in a summer reading intervention. They compared these students to similar students in the district who were offered the intervention but did not participate. The sample included 979 students in Grades 1-4. The sample was 48 percent female, 17 percent Black, 33 percent Hispanic, and 8 percent other race. Half of the students in the sample (50 percent) received free or reduced-price lunch, 28 percent were English learners, and 52 percent had Individual Education Programs (IEPs).
Intervention Group
The summer reading intervention consisted of daily whole-group and small-group instruction offered by a reading teacher using Wonders and Wonder-Works lessons (McGraw-Hill Education). All students received one whole group Wonders lesson and two separate small-group Wonder-Works lessons per day. The four students in each classroom who had the lowest pretest scores received additional small-group instruction from a specially trained interventionist. Instruction in these additional small groups did not follow a particular curriculum but was focused on practices such as guided reading, assisted writing, and reading comprehension practice. During this small-group time, students not working with the teacher participated in various literacy stations focused on activities like silent reading, writing, and spelling. The intervention was offered for 28 days and students participated for three hours per day.
Comparison Group
Comparison groups did not attend the summer school.
Support for implementation
Teachers and interventionists offering the whole-group and small-group instruction were certified teachers, most of whom held a master's degree and special educational certification.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Summer reading program – Reed et al. (2019))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- The study does not meet WWC group design standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not 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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).