Examining the Effects of Afterschool Reading Interventions for Upper Elementary Struggling Readers [Text processing with foundational reading skills intervention vs. business as usual]
Roberts, Garrett J.; Capin, Philip; Roberts, Greg; Miciak, Jeremy; Quinn, Jamie M.; Vaughn, Sharon (2018). Remedial and Special Education, v39 n3 p131-143. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1179728
-
examining240Students, grades3-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 1 (Roberts et al. (2018)))
- 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 1 (Roberts et al. (2018)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
461.33 |
465.24 |
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 1 (Roberts et al. (2018)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
485.91 |
485.13 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
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
West
-
Race Black 36% Native American 2% Other or unknown 20% White 42% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
Study Details
Setting
Seven schools from two southwestern U.S. school districts participated in the study, three from urban areas and four from “near-urban” areas. The intervention was implemented during after-school tutoring sessions at the schools.
Study sample
Of the 278 randomly assigned to the text processing with foundational reading skills (TP+FS) and comparison conditions, 75 were in grade 3, 109 were in grade 4, and 94 were in grade 5. In addition, 16.5% of the sample were English learners; 18.25% received services in special education; 36% were Black, 6.1% were Hispanic, 2.15% were Native American, 41.75% were White, and 6.45% have two or more races/ethnicities. On average 61% of students in the seven schools were qualified for free and reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students in the intervention group received an offer to attend a supplementary reading program after school aimed to develop their reading comprehension. The intervention of interest in this contrast (text processing with foundational reading skills) consisted of 30 minutes of computer-based instruction and 30 minutes of small-group instruction delivered to three to six students. Sessions occurred 4 to 5 days per week from November to May. The intervention consisted of using text processing approaches as a way to help students work through text and understand it, instead of focusing on specific routines for reading. The intervention also worked on building the foundational reading skills of students (e.g., phonemic awareness and phonics).
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison condition continued with business-as-usual instruction. They received no invitation to attend an after-school program.
Support for implementation
Tutors completed six hours of training before the intervention, a two-hour training during the intervention, and ongoing observations and support as needed. The training sessions focused on implementing the intervention components, instructional techniques, promoting student engagement, and behavior management.
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).