Effects of an Informational Text Reading Comprehension Intervention for Fifth-Grade Students [Informational text reading comprehension intervention vs. business as usual]
Ritchey, Kristen D.; Palombo, Kimberly; Silverman, Rebecca D.; Speece, Deborah L. (2017). Learning Disability Quarterly, v40 n2 p68-80. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1139515
-
examining46Students, grade5
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Ritchey et al. (2017)))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reading fluency (Fuchs et al., 1990) |
Reading intervention (Ritchey et al. (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
93.52 |
95.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
Reading intervention (Ritchey et al. (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
84.04 |
82.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-5) Comprehension |
Reading intervention (Ritchey et al. (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
9.65 |
8.04 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III): Reading comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention (Ritchey et al. (2017)) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
92.87 |
90.87 |
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.
-
7% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Race Asian 2% Black 22% Other or unknown 15% White 61%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was implemented in four elementary schools. The elementary schools were all in a single district in the mid-Atlantic region.
Study sample
In each group, 11 students were male and 12 were female. The racial breakdown of the intervention group was as follows: 3 Black students, 15 White students, and 5 biracial students. The racial breakdown of the comparison group was as follows: 7 Black students, 1 Asian student, 13 White students, and 2 students who preferred not to answer. Mother's education levels for the intervention group were as follows: less than high school graduate, 1 student; high school graduate, 2 students; some college, 4 students; college graduate, 8 students; some graduate school, 5 students; graduate degree, 3 students. Mother's education levels for the comparison group were as follows: high school graduate, 1 student; some college, 3 students; college graduate, 13 students; some graduate school, 3 students; graduate degree, 3 students. In the intervention group, 3 students were receiving special education services. In the comparison group, 2 students were receiving special education services. The authors note that 3 of these students had Individualized Education Program (IEPs) and 2 had Section 504 plans, but they do not describe how these students were distributed across the two groups. Four students were English learners but only 3 were provided with English language instruction; one of these students was in the intervention group and 2 in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention focused on the theme of life in or near the ocean. Explicit reading comprehension instruction was provided for 6 areas: (1) previewing texts, (2) activating background knowledge, (3) strategies for decoding and understanding words that are unfamiliar, (4) "shrinking" the paragraph to identify the main idea, (5) summarizing, and (6) using an adaptation of the question-answer relationships (QAR) strategy. Students used an acronym, PLUG IN to help them remember the strategy. The acronym stands for: Previewing, Linking to what you know, Using fix-up strategies, Generating questions, In your own words, and Now, answer the questions. The intervention ran for five months, from October through February. The intervention was delivered over thirty minute sessions in small groups of two to four students. There were a total of 40 sessions that were administered 4 times per week over a period of 10 to 12 weeks. Instruction followed a 4-day sequence. On day 1, the tutor provided explicit instruction on the strategy and modeled its use. On day 2, instruction included more modeling and supported and independent practice. On day 3, students practiced the strategy while reading trade books. On day 4, students supported each other, while taking turns in the role of "coach". This approach was adapted from Collaborative Strategic Reading.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. Nine of the students in the comparison group participated in supplemental reading instruction. Four students received instruction with Corrective Reading (180-200 minutes per week), four students received instruction with Voyage (150-180 minutes per week), and one student received instruction with Soar to Success (175 minutes per week).
Support for implementation
Tutors attended about 20 hours of training. Lesson plans for days 1 and 2 were scripted. One of the study authors observed implementation of the intervention and provided feedback to the tutors as needed.
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).