Impact Evaluation of Reading "i-Ready" for Striving Learners Using 2018-19 Data. Final Report. No. 053
Randel, Bruce; Swain, Matthew; Norman Dvorak, Rebecca; Spratto, Elisabeth; Prendez, Jordan Yee (2020). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED610441
-
examining122,548Students, grades2-5
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Publication (findings for i-Ready)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 3: Bottom 20th percentile in reading achievement;
|
468.99 |
461.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
449.60 |
444.62 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 4;
|
488.19 |
483.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 5;
|
531.56 |
525.97 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 2: Bottom 20th percentile in reading achievement;
|
444.58 |
439.47 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5: Bottom 20th percentile in reading achievement;
|
509.26 |
503.87 |
Yes |
|
||
|
i-Ready Diagnostic |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 4: Bottom 20th percentile in reading achievement;
|
488.19 |
483.00 |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, Urban
-
Race Other or unknown 50% White 50% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 52% No FRPL 48%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in public elementary schools with student-level i-Ready usage files for students in grades 2-5.
Study sample
There are 122,548 students in the analytic sample across grades 2 through 5. About half (52.2%) of students were eligible for free or reduced lunch, half (50%) of the students were White, and half (50%) of students were classified as being from a historically marginalized race (Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or two or more races).
Intervention Group
i-Ready is an online personalized instruction program that includes multimedia instruction and progress monitoring of online lessons. The minimum i-Ready usage at the student level, in order to be included in the intervention group, was 18 weeks, with an average of at least 30 minutes per week. The i-Ready intervention was developed to be used alongside the i-Ready diagnostic assessment, which is the primary outcome reported in the study.
Comparison Group
The comparison group did not receive any i-Ready reading instruction, and only used i-Ready Diagnostics.
Support for implementation
No information 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).