Striving Readers Study: Targeted & Whole-School Interventions -- Year 5 [READ 180 vs. business as usual]
Meisch, Allison; Hamilton, Jennifer; Chen, Eva; Quintanilla, Priscilla; Fong, Pauline; Gray-Adams, Karen; Petta, Ian; Thornton, Nancy (2011). Westat. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED601086
-
examining1,023Students, grades6-8
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for READ 180®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test-10 (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - 3 years of exposure to READ 180;
|
623.15 |
621.53 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test-10 (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample - 2 years of READ 180 exposure;
|
611.23 |
611.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test-10 (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - 1 year of READ 180 exposure;
|
599.10 |
597.88 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test 10th edition (SAT-10) - reading comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - 3 years of exposure to READ 180;
|
641.74 |
641.17 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test 10th edition (SAT-10) - reading comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample - 2 years of READ 180 exposure;
|
624.44 |
622.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test 10th edition (SAT-10) - reading comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - 1 year of READ 180 exposure;
|
610.24 |
608.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, Version 10--Reading Vocabulary, subset of inference items |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample - 3 years of exposure to READ 180;
|
642.91 |
642.97 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, Version 10--Reading Vocabulary, subset of inference items |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - 1 year of READ 180 exposure;
|
614.76 |
611.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, Version 10--Reading Vocabulary, subset of inference items |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample - 2 years of READ 180 exposure;
|
629.83 |
629.48 |
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.
-
8% English language learners -
Female: 43%
Male: 57% -
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
New Jersey
-
Race Black 55% Other or unknown 45% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 43% Not Hispanic or Latino 57%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 19 public middle schools in Newark, New Jersey. Initially, there were 20 middle schools participating in the study but two merged after randomization.
Study sample
The majority of students were Black (55%) and over 43% of students were Hispanic. The sample was roughly equally split between students in grades 6, 7, and 8, with a slightly larger proportion of students in grade 6. Fifty-seven percent of the sample was male, and 43% was female. Forty-two percent were in special education, 8% were English learners, and 58% were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention group received the READ 180® curriculum. The intervention sessions included five parts totaling 90 minutes each: 20 minutes of whole-group instruction, 20 minutes of small-group instruction in reading comprehension strategies, 20 minutes of independent reading, 20 minutes of software use, and 10 minutes of whole-group wrap-up. Instruction lasted between 1 and 3 years.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the business-as-usual language arts curriculum.
Support for implementation
Teachers received 1 to 3 days of large-group training. Classroom support was provided to teachers by five Resource Teacher Coordinators (RTCs), who were teacher’s aides. RTCs also attended the teacher training. Technology coordinators for the READ 180® software provided support for technical issues encountered by the teachers. These technology coordinators had a half-day of training in years 1 and 2. Finally, principals of READ 180® schools received 2 hours of training in years 1 and 2.
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).