Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Efficacy of a Word- and Text-Based Intervention for Students with Significant Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word reading and comprehension vs. business as usual]
Vaughn, Sharon; Roberts, Garrett J.; Miciak, Jeremy; Taylor, Pat; Fletcher, Jack M. (2019). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v52 n1 p31-44. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199703
-
examining252Students, grades4-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
479.00 |
475.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb Curriculum-Based Measure: Reading |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
119.90 |
106.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.20 |
19.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
490.50 |
489.40 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.00 |
90.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn, Roberts, et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
504.00 |
501.70 |
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.
-
21% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- 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, West
-
Race Asian 2% Black 42% Native American 3% Other or unknown 2% White 51%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in nine schools across three school districts in the southwestern United States. Six schools were in urban areas, and the authors note that of those six, three were in a large urban school district, and three were in a small, affluent urban school district. The other three schools were in a “near-urban” school district. The mean enrollment of the participating schools was 585 students (SD=119.8, range=440-728). The proportion of students who passed the reading section of the state accountability exam in fourth grade ranged from 34% to 99% (M=75.2%, SD=22.5%).
Study sample
Study participants included fourth- and fifth-grade students with severe reading difficulties. Of the analytic sample, about 52% of students were male and 48% were female. About 21% of students had limited English proficiency. The analytic sample was mostly White (51%), followed by Black (42%), American Indian (3%), Asian (2%), and other or multiple races (2%). About 14% of students in the analytic sample were in special education. Within the participating schools, the proportion of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch ranged from 2.6% to 96.1% (M=44.4%, SD=37.5%).
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention was delivered to small groups of three to six students in 30- to 45-minute lessons. The intervention was delivered five days per week from October to April. On average, students participated in 68 lessons. The intervention proceeded in three phases. During the first phase, lessons focused on word study and reading fluency. Twenty minutes each day were devoted to word study including systematic decoding instruction and practice with word patterns and sight words. The words and text that were covered in the lesson progressed over time to more difficult words and text. Students started by learning words and then went on to work with the words in the context of phrases, sentences, and longer text. Students also practiced spelling and took spelling quizzes. Ten minutes per day in phase 1 was devoted to fluency. Students worked with QuickReads texts during this time. This part of the lesson included the introduction of keywords related to the text's main idea, repeated reading of the text in different formats, and using the keywords in a summary of the passage. Phases 2 and 3 focused on reading expository, narrative, and hybrid texts. For three out of the five lessons, students worked with stretch texts, which were one grade level above their current reading level. These texts were similar in terms of vocabulary and background knowledge to the grade-level texts that students had previously read. Students set goals, read the text, answered comprehension questions, and then evaluated their goals. During the other two lessons, students worked on fluency and word study. Fluency instruction was similar to phase 1. Word study included systematic instruction in morphology for 10 to 15 minutes and automaticity instruction that focused on words and sentences covered in the first phase. AiMSweb was used for progress monitoring throughout the intervention.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated in business-as-usual instruction. Approximately two-thirds of comparison students received at least one additional reading intervention that was provided by the school. The nature of these interventions varied and included use of commercially available curricula, computer-based instruction, and teacher-designed lessons, which focused on word reading, fluency, comprehension, and preparation for high-stakes assessments.
Support for implementation
The tutors participated in 18 hours of professional development (PD). Of those PD hours, ten hours occurred prior to the implementation of the intervention, and eight hours occurred after lesson 40. Also, every two to three weeks, tutors participated in staff development meetings and on-site feedback and coaching. Tutors audio-recorded all instructional lessons, and a minimum of 20 percent of lessons per tutor, per block (i.e., lessons 1-40, lessons 41-80, lessons 81-110) were randomly selected for fidelity coding. The fidelity coding was conducted by four trained research assistants. Coders assigned a score using a 4-point Likert-type rating scale to evaluate implementation fidelity for specific intervention components as well as for global quality (i.e., adherence to principles of teacher instruction and classroom management) and global fidelity (i.e., a holistic evaluation of implementation and success of the lesson).
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).