Examining the Efficacy of Targeted Component Interventions on Language and Literacy for Third and Fourth Graders Who Are at Risk of Comprehension Difficulties [TEXTS vs. business as usual]
Connor, Carol McDonald; Phillips, Beth M.; Kim, Young-Suk Grace; Lonigan, Christopher J.; Kaschak, Michael P.; Crowe, Elizabeth; Dombek, Jennifer; Al Otaiba, Stephanie (2018). Scientific Studies of Reading, v22 n6 p462-484. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1188481
-
examining216Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for TEXTS)
- 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 Narrative Language Skills (TNL) |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
31.15 |
31.01 |
No |
-- | |
|
Inconsistency Detection (InconDetect; Connor et al., 2018) |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
15.92 |
15.94 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
24.53 |
25.17 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
27.56 |
28.08 |
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 |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
65.45 |
65.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
51.40 |
51.85 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
TEXTS vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention vs. business-as-usual (4th grade);
|
31.46 |
32.89 |
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: 52%
Male: 48% -
- 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
Florida
-
Race Black 39% Other or unknown 8% White 53% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 115 fourth-grade classrooms in 31 schools in Florida.
Study sample
At participating schools, at least 40 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Of the fourth-grade participants, 52 percent were girls. Of the third- and fourth-grade participants, 39 percent were African American, 53 percent were White, 3 percent were multi-racial, and the remaining were other ethnicities. (Note: The student ethnicity data were provided for the entire sample, which included both third- and fourth-grade students. This review focuses on only the fourth-grade students in two of three treatment conditions – i.e., the TEXTS intervention group and the business-as-usual comparison group – however, disaggregated student characteristic data were not provided.) On average, the fourth graders were 9.8 years old (SD = 0.50) at the time of initial screening.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. There were four interventions implemented in this study, each a component of Comprehension Tools for Teachers (CTT), which provided tier 2 instruction to small groups of four or five students. Each intervention was provided for 30 minutes a day, four days a week, between 10 and 12 weeks. This review focuses on the Teaching Expository Text Structure (TEXTS) intervention, which aims to teach expository text structure and the ways in which particular words can identify particular structures. Examples of text structures include sequencing, cause and effect, compare and contrast, and problem and solution. The intervention consisted of a series of one-week-long units, each with a scripted lesson plan. The books that were used for each unit were based on common topics and the state’s fourth-grade standards. In a given week, on the first day, the first five minutes involved introducing signal words and the strategy of searching for words that might indicate the text’s structure. Then, students read the book for about 10 minutes followed by five to 10 minutes of application and practice. Lastly, there was a brief wrap-up and students were asked to review what they had learned. The second day entailed interventionists and students playing a relevant game, a guided reading through the story, and instructions on the use of a graphic organizer for representing text sequence. On the third day, students participated in guided review games and created stories that followed the week’s featured text structure. On the fourth day, interventionists and students engaged in a review of signal words. Then, interventionists introduced a new story with the same text structure but without signal words. Students were asked to consider what words might signal the text structure. On average, students attended 42 of 48 lessons.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual, so the comparison group students participated in their regular classroom instruction. The instruction focused on reading comprehension, strategies, discussions about texts, building vocabulary in context, writing, and decoding/encoding. The researchers conducted brief observations of classrooms as well as discussions and surveys with teachers. Generally, there was good quality instruction that followed the districts’ core literacy curricula. The core literacy curricula adopted by the districts included Treasures, Wonders, Open Court Imagine, and Journeys.
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented by instructional assistants (IAs), who were supervised by intervention coordinators. The intervention coordinator's role was specific to the intervention. In other words, the IAs who implemented the TEXTS intervention was supervised by TEXTS intervention coordinators. The intervention coordinators provided eight hours of initial professional development specific to the TEXTS intervention followed by six hours of booster professional development. The coordinators also maintained discussion boards where IAs could post questions and submit responses to weekly implementation quizzes. Additionally, all IAs were trained to use a token economy system for behavioral management. Within the first few weeks of the study, coordinators observed each IA and provided immediate feedback. Then, coordinators monitored the IAs’ adherence to scripted lesson plans and quality of implementation. All intervention sessions were recorded, and each week, to rate the fidelity of implementation as well as provide feedback and support, one session per IA was reviewed.
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).