
Effects of a Text-Processing Comprehension Intervention on Struggling Middle School Readers [Text processing intervention vs. business as usual]
Barth, Amy E.; Vaughn, Sharon; Capin, Philip; Cho, Eunsoo; Stillman-Spisak, Stephanie; Martinez, Leticia; Kincaid, Heather (2016). Topics in Language Disorders, v36 n4 p368-389. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1118928
-
examining130Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, 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 Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.83 |
97.51 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Listening Comprehension-Understanding Messages (Barth et al., 2016) |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.14 |
97.64 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Listening Comprehension-Detail (Barth et al., 2016) |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.31 |
92.18 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Listening Comprehension-Vocabulary and Semantics (Barth et al., 2016) |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.96 |
99.67 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Key Word and Main Idea (Barth et al., 2016) |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.87 |
6.73 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Bridge-IT |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.54 |
4.48 |
No |
-- | |
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test - Fourth Edition |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
481.45 |
482.87 |
No |
-- | |
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Barth et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.08 |
91.19 |
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: 46%
Male: 54% -
Rural
-
- 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 9% Other or unknown 7% White 84% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 3% Not Hispanic or Latino 97%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in three public middle schools from three school districts in the rural Midwest.
Study sample
Across the sample, 46 percent were female, 77 percent were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 31 percent received special education services. Eighty-four percent were White, 9 percent were Black, 3 percent were Hispanic, and 5 percent were of other races or ethnicities. Students were in grades 6 through 8, with higher numbers of students in grades 6 (n=51) and 7 (n=55) than grades 8. There were 42 students with disabilities in the final sample, 19 of whom were labeled with a specific learning disability.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students received the intervention for 40 minutes per session, 4 times per week for 8 weeks in small, mixed-grade groups of 4 to 6 students. Across the three school districts, students received an average of 17.3 hours of instruction, but the number of intervention sessions that students received varied significantly. Interventionists used semi-scripted lessons and grade-level science texts organized around four, two-week thematic units. The intervention was delivered using explicit instructional routines, feedback, and gradual release of responsibility to students. Each instructional lesson consisted of three components: 1) identifying keywords and main ideas, 2) synthesizing information within a single text for summarization and making inferences, and 3) integrating information across multiple texts. Intervention group students continued to participate in core content area classes.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated in elective classes such as band, choir, and art while intervention group students attended intervention sessions. Comparison group students, like intervention group students, continued to participate in core content area classes.
Support for implementation
Interventionists received 12 hours of training on instruction delivery, behavior management, and supporting student engagement. The research team also led weekly meetings with the interventionists to provide ongoing instructional support and supplied scripted lessons for each instructional session.
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).