Educational technology in support of elementary students with reading or language-based disabilities: A cluster randomized controlled trial.
Hurwitz, L. B., & Vanacore, K. P. (2022). Journal of Learning Disabilities.
-
examining115Students, gradesK-5
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Lexia Core5 Reading)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Growth Reading |
Lexia Core5 Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
easyCBM Passage Reading Fluency |
Lexia Core5 Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2, 3, 4, and 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Illinois
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 2 primary schools (serving grades K-3) and 3 intermediate schools (serving grades 3-5) in a mid-sized school district in the Chicago metropolitan area.
Study sample
Authors only reported demographic information for the district, which is reported on p. 4. The study's intervention group included 3 schools, 13 special education teachers, and 66 students and the comparison group included 2 schools, 7 special education teachers, and 50 students. The analytic sample for the MAP Growth Reading assessment included 65 students in the intervention group and 50 students in the comparison group. The easyCBM assessment was administered in grades 2-5 only. The analytic sample included 58 students in the intervention group and 42 students in the comparison group. All students in the sample received supplemental reading instruction from a special education teacher.
Intervention Group
The intervention group used Lexia Core5 Reading during both push-in special education reading sessions (where special education teachers come into the main classroom) and pull-out sessions (where students are moved out of their main classroom for special education sessions) as a supplement to Tier 1 instruction. The intervention included online activities, teacher-led lessons, and paper-based activities designed to improve students' skills in phonological awareness, phonics, structural analysis, fluency/automaticity, vocabulary, and comprehension. At the outset of the intervention, students took a placement test, which put them into one of 18 levels. Students then spent between 20 and 80 minutes online--depending on their reading level. Students took quizzes to advance to new levels, and if successful they would receive certificates for teachers to deliver and celebrate students' success. The intervention includes an online teacher dashboard which allows teachers to monitor their students' progress.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received the standard curricula. Tier 1 supports included the provision of iPad-based version of the Schoolwide's Reading Fundamentals Program, which was a balanced literacy program that included both fiction and nonfiction texts. The district did not mandate a supplemental curriculum for special education, but all but one teacher in the comparison group used multiple supplemental interventions.
Support for implementation
Intervention schools participated in the Implementation Success Partnership (ISP) to support use of Lexia Core5. The ISP provides training packages to paid Lexia customers, and all intervention group teachers received a series of trainings. ISP staff also led leadership check-ins with district administrators and the school psychologist to discuss strategies to improve implementation fidelity.
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).