The Relative Effects of Group Size on Reading Progress of Older Students with Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word study, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (small group) vs. Reading intervention on word study, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (large group)]
Vaughn, Sharon; Wanzek, Jeanne; Wexler, Jade; Barth, Amy; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack; Romain, Melissa; Denton, Carolyn A.; Roberts, Greg; Francis, David (2010). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v23 n8 p931-956. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ893981
-
examining258Students, grades7-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)))
- 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 (TOSRE) |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
86.30 |
85.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
AIMSweb reading maze |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
23.50 |
24.50 |
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 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
87.70 |
86.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
86.20 |
86.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
94.00 |
91.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
95.10 |
92.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Spelling Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
95.00 |
91.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
95.70 |
93.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group;
|
95.80 |
95.20 |
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: 43%
Male: 57% -
Rural, 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
Texas
-
Race Asian 3% Black 40% Native American 0% Other or unknown 43% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 57%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six schools across two large, urban sites in the southwestern United States. Across all schools, the student population ranged in size from 633 to 1300 students, and the rate of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch ranged from 56% to 86% in one site and from 40% to 85% in the other site.
Study sample
Of the 486 students included in the study, 43 percent were female, and 74 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The sample included 193 African American students (40 percent), 211 Hispanic students (43 percent), 67 White students (14 percent), 13 Asian students (3 percent), and 2 American Indian students (0.41 percent). Only 258 students were included in the analytic sample for this contrast.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This review compares the researcher-designed small-group intervention (intervention condition) with the researcher-designed large-group intervention (comparison condition). The difference between experimental groups was the size of the group through which the reading intervention was delivered (in all other ways, the intervention and comparison conditions were identical). In this contrast, the intervention condition was implemented in groups of three to five students. Students in both the small-group intervention group and the large-group intervention group were provided the same multi-component instructional reading intervention that addressed multisyllable word reading, academic vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and comprehension. The experimental groups met for 45 to 50 minutes each day over the course of a full school year (from September through May). The reading intervention was composed of three phases of instruction, each of which prioritized an element of instruction and also incorporated the skills and knowledge covered in previous phases. Phase I focused on word study and fluency and vocabulary and comprehension. Phase II focused on vocabulary and comprehension and included additional instruction and practice in word study and fluency skills and strategies. Phase III continued the focus on vocabulary and comprehension and emphasized independent student application of skills and strategies.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was the researcher-designed large-group intervention, implemented in groups of 10 to 15 students. The large-group intervention was delivered in a 50-minute class session each day throughout the entire school year using the same reading intervention as that of the intervention condition. The only difference between the two groups was the size of the groups to which the reading intervention was delivered.
Support for implementation
The researchers provided intervention teachers with approximately 60 hours of professional development prior to teaching as well as an additional nine hours of professional development related to the intervention throughout the year. Professional development hours included training on methods specific to the intervention, features of effective instruction, behavior management, and general information about adolescent struggling readers. Teachers received ongoing feedback and coaching, and there were biweekly staff development meetings.
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).