Impact of Intensive Summer Reading Intervention for Children with Reading Disabilities and Difficulties in Early Elementary School
Christodoulou, Joanna A.; Cyr, Abigail; Murtagh, Jack; Chang, Patricia; Lin, Jiayi; Guarino, Anthony J.; Hook, Pamela; Gabrieli, John D. E. (2017). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v50 n2 p115-127. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1129862
-
examining47Students, grades1-4
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Seeing Stars)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack Subtest |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
88.09 |
79.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
80.48 |
72.86 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Symbol Imagery Test (SIT) |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
99.32 |
84.21 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification Subtest |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
85.65 |
78.58 |
Yes |
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
40.48 |
35.88 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2) Sight Word Efficiency Subtest |
Seeing Stars vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
80.04 |
78.83 |
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: 36%
Male: 64% -
Race Black 6% Native American 4% Other or unknown 7% Two or more races 2% White 81% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Not Hispanic or Latino 98% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention took place in small groups during a six-week period over the summer .
Study sample
The study included 49 students who had reading disabilities or reading difficulties, including 24 students randomly assigned to the intervention group and 25 students randomly assigned to the comparison group. Of the 47 students who remained in the study, 81 percent were White, 6 percent were Black, 4 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 percent were multiracial, and the racial composition of the remaining 7 percent was unspecified. Two percent of students were Hispanic. Moreover 64 percent of students were male, 55 percent had a language-based learning disability, and students were an average of 7.72 years old.
Intervention Group
The Seeing Stars intervention was implemented over a six-week period. Students participated five days a week for four hours each day, with 5-10 minute breaks per hour. This totaled approximately 100-120 hours of teaching per student. Parents could also sign their child up for reading instruction outside the program; one participant in the intervention group reported receiving 2 hours per week of additional instruction at a learning center nearby for the entire six-week study period.
Comparison Group
The comparison group remained on a waitlist and were offered the intervention after completion of the study. Of the 24 students in the comparison group, 12 students reported receiving supplemental tutoring or reading instruction, either through private tutoring (7) or summer school (5). Students in the comparison group received up to 80 hours of reading instruction.
Support for implementation
One project consultant manager, one regional director, and one corporate director of instruction all conducted observations and offered recommendations to instructors regarding implementation of the intervention. All instructors were trained via the Lindamood-Bell program and were also staff members of the program. Instructors are offered an average of 80 hours of formal instruction, followed by 80 hours of clinical observation.
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).