Effects from a Randomized Control Trial Comparing Researcher and School-Implemented Treatments with Fourth Graders with Significant Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word reading, vocabulary, and comprehension vs. business as usual]
Vaughn, Sharon; Solís, Michael; Miciak, Jeremy; Taylor, W. Pat; Fletcher, Jack M. (2016). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v9 suppl 1 p23-44. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1115339
-
examining445Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Vaughn et al. (2016)))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Reading intervention (Vaughn et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.03 |
15.99 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Vaughn et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.07 |
84.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
83.37 |
84.81 |
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 et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.13 |
84.46 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Vaughn et al. (2016)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.34 |
92.46 |
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: 45%
Male: 55% -
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 Black 22% Other or unknown 71% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 70% Not Hispanic or Latino 30%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in eight elementary schools in one urban district and nine elementary schools in two "near urban" districts. The districts were all located in the southwestern United States.
Study sample
The mean age of the analytic sample was 9.78 years. Participants were 44.72% female, and 95.07% qualified for free or reduced lunch. About 12.78% of the sample had been previously identified as special education status. The racial and ethnic composition of the sample was 69.53% Hispanic, 21.62% African-American, 7.62% White, and 1.23% other race.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The research team hired 19 tutors to administer the intervention to students in groups of 4 to 5, for approximately 35 minutes, 5 times a week, over 16 weeks. On average, students in the intervention group received between 23.4 to 26.5 hours of the intervention. Lessons were organized into 2-week units based on a theme aligned to what was being taught in the students’ social studies classes. The intervention lessons consisted of three components: 1. Word and concept building (3 to 10 minutes), 2. Text reading of a narrative or expository passage (15 to 20 minutes), and 3. Word study (6 to 10 minutes). Vocabulary instruction focused on six vocabulary words per unit, each related to the unit’s theme. Questions encouraged the application of each word as it related to the students’ texts and personal lives. Words were reviewed in a 3-day pattern, and on day 10, students completed a maze activity as a curriculum-based measure of understanding. Text-based reading instruction focused on both stretch and fluency texts. Stretch text instruction occurred during lessons 4-7 and had students reading grade-level (not reading level) texts and pause at stopping points to explain the meaning of the text in their own words. Tutors also asked questions about the text. Fluency text instruction occurred during lessons 1-3 and 8-9. Fluency texts were from the QuickReads program. Students were asked to skim the text and ask clarifying questions before re-reading to tell what the passage was about. Students moved from choral readings to independent reading with or without a partner. After completing fluency activities, students participated in a “Does it Make Sense?” activity, in which students were asked to read a sentence or paragraph to determine if it made sense, syntactically and semantically. On day 10, students re-read passages from the unit to check for understanding. The word study component of the intervention addressed phonics skills and multisyllabic words. Assigned lists were based on the individual needs of the student and were updated according to each students’ progress. Student progress was monitored using the 4th-grade level passages from AIMSWeb, Reading Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM-R), and the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received reading instruction from school personnel. Instruction provided included: test preparation, basic word reading interventions, fluency interventions, inclusion support, and response to intervention/resource instruction. School-provided interventions were typically administered in groups that ranged from 1 to 15 students for 2 to 5 days per week, and in 10- to 60-minute sessions.
Support for implementation
Tutors participated in 10 hours of training that covered the intervention implementation, strategies for engaging students, features of effective instruction, and behavior management. This was followed by 8 additional hours of training that was provided throughout the year. Tutors participated in staff meetings on a biweekly basis. They also received on-site feedback and coaching about once every 2-3 weeks.
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).