Replication of an Experimental Study Investigating the Efficacy of a Multisyllabic Word Reading Intervention with and without Motivational Beliefs Training for Struggling Readers [Multisyllabic word reading intervention (with or without motivation) vs. business as usual]
Toste, Jessica R.; Capin, Philip; Williams, Kelly J.; Cho, Eunsoo; Vaughn, Sharon (2019). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v52 n1 p45-58. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199704
-
examining108Students, grades4-5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Toste 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test–4 (GRMT- 4) |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.93 |
90.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
WJ III Passage Comprehension |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.57 |
89.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Big Word Reading Test - Big Word List (Toste et al 2019) |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
80.09 |
66.89 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.47 |
92.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency - 2nd Ed (TOWRE-2): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.05 |
89.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.38 |
93.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention (Toste et al. (2019)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.28 |
87.53 |
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.
-
26% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
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
-
Race Black 6% Other or unknown 90% White 4% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 93% Not Hispanic or Latino 7%
Study Details
Setting
The study examined three elementary schools from a school district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The students in the study sample were in 4th and 5th grade. The sample was 6.4% Black students, 3.6% White students, and 93% Hispanic students. The sample was evenly split between male and female students. Twenty-six percent of the sample were English learners, and 92% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. For this review, the intervention group includes students randomly assigned to the multisyllabic word reading (MWR) or the multisyllabic word reading with a motivational beliefs component (MWR + MB) intervention. For all students in the intervention group, 40-minute sessions occurred 4 times a week in small groups of three or four students. The intervention lasted about 10 weeks and included 40 lessons. All lessons were scripted for standardization across the intervention. Each lesson had 7 instructional components: Warm-up, affix bank, wordplay, beat the clock, write a word, speedy read, and text reading. Below is a description of each component: (1) Warm-Up: For three minutes, students were taught target vowel patterns, vowel digraphs, and r-controlled vowels and then practiced the pattern with nonsense words. (2) Affix bank: For three minutes, tutors taught high-frequency affixes. (3) Wordplay: For five minutes, students assembled or blended word parts using games. (4) Beat the clock: Students practiced breaking or segmenting multisyllabic words. (5) Write a word: Students worked on encoding skills for five to eight minutes. (6) Speedy read: Students were timed for accuracy on word-list reading for five minutes. (7) Text reading: Sentences were read that used the multisyllabic words that were focused on previously in the lesson. Students in the MWR + MB intervention additionally received instruction on motivation (but the reading instruction was identical across the MWR and MWR + MB groups).
Comparison Group
Students in the control group received computer-based programming, guided reading, sustained silent reading, and preparation sessions for the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness while those in the intervention group received the multisyllabic word reading intervention.
Support for implementation
Eight tutors were hired by the research team to provide the intervention. Tutors received 8 hours of training over two sessions. They were paid for preparation time to read scripted lessons and prepare materials and practice delivering instruction. All tutors completed a mock lesson and needed to achieve 90% fidelity before working with students in the study. Tutors were observed in a combination of live and audio recordings. Fidelity was checked throughout the intervention period.
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).