A Conceptual Replication Study of the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction MTSS-Reading Model
Fien, Hank; Nelson, Nancy J.; Smolkowski, Keith; Kosty, Derek; Pilger, Marissa; Baker, Scott King; Smith, Jean Louise Mercier (2021). Exceptional Children, v87 n3 p265-288 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1292181
-
examining757Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Word Fluency-Words Recoded Completely and Correctly (NWF-WRC) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.60 |
20.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
DIBELS - Nonsense Word Fluency - Correct Letter Sounds |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
87.20 |
75.30 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Word Fluency-Words Recoded Completely and Correctly (NWF-WRC) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
-19 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
18.60 |
15.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
DIBELS - Nonsense Word Fluency - Correct Letter Sounds |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
-19 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
66.40 |
59.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test-10th Edition (SAT10) Total Reading Score (Primary 1) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
551.80 |
548.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
59.90 |
54.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
SAT10: Word Reading subtest (Primary 1) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
541.60 |
537.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
SAT10: Sentence Reading scaled score (Primary 1) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
556.90 |
554.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
-19 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
31.20 |
27.90 |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
Massachusetts, Oregon
-
Race Black 4% Other or unknown 96% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 50% No FRPL 50%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 44 elementary schools in Oregon and Massachusetts. The schools were recruited in two waves: Wave 1 included 16 schools and Wave 2 added 28 more schools. The Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) intervention was implemented in 1st-grade classrooms using each district’s adopted core reading program during daily 90-minute reading blocks with additional 30-minute small-group instruction for students identified for Tier 2 support. The study analyzed outcomes from schools’ second year of implementing the ECRI model.
Study sample
The study included 757 1st-grade students identified for Tier 2 reading support based on fall screening scores (351 intervention, 406 comparison). Students were identified as needing Tier 2 support if they scored between the 10th-30th percentiles on the Stanford Achievement Test in Wave 1 schools or between the 15th-40th percentiles in Wave 2 schools. Of the participating students, 5% received special education services. The students were served by 146 1st-grade teachers (72 intervention, 74 comparison) who had an average of 13.8 years of teaching experience. Schools were randomly assigned to conditions, with 23 schools assigned to each condition initially and 22 per condition in the analytic sample.
Intervention Group
ECRI is a multitiered system of support for reading (MTSS-R) that enhances core reading programs by increasing the explicitness of Tier 1 instruction and providing aligned Tier 2 intervention. The model aims to improve foundational reading skills for all students while providing additional support for struggling readers. Students received 90 minutes of daily Tier 1 instruction using lesson maps that prioritized essential reading content through explicit teaching routines. Students identified for Tier 2 received an additional 30 minutes of daily small-group instruction aligned with Tier 1 content. Implementation fidelity was high, with treatment teachers showing mean scores of 0.89 for quality of explicit instruction and overall fidelity of 0.90.
Comparison Group
Schools in the business-as-usual comparison condition implemented typical MTSS-R practices using their standard core reading programs (e.g., Scott Foresman Reading Street, Houghton Mifflin Journeys, Macmillan Treasures, Harcourt Storytown, and Success for All). Students received 90 minutes of reading instruction daily, with teachers reporting an average of 52.5 minutes in whole-group instruction, 34.5 minutes in small-group instruction, and 27.9 minutes in independent work. Students identified for Tier 2 received 30 minutes of daily small-group intervention using publisher-sponsored supplemental programs or teacher-developed materials.
Support for implementation
ECRI treatment teachers received three days of initial professional development focused on implementing the instructional model, followed by two follow-up days. Small-group instructors received three days of training. Monthly coaching supported implementation through classroom observations and regular study group meetings. In comparison schools, 62% of teachers reported receiving some instructional support and coaching about teaching reading from school staff.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI))
- Additional source not reviewed because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).