Literacy First: Evaluation summary report
Caverly, S. & Stoker, G. (2021). Arlington, VA: American Institutes for Research. https://literacyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Literacy_First_Summary_Report_K-3_FINAL_for-UT1.pdf.
-
examining1,825Students, gradesK-3
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Literacy First)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Reading |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 3;
|
N/A |
0.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Mathematics |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 3;
|
N/A |
0.15 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
-0.14 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Letter Sound Fluency (Researcher Developed) |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
N/A |
-0.45 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) - reading comprehension |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
-0.12 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
-0.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
N/A |
-0.17 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
DIBELS - Nonsense Word Fluency - Whole Word Reading (NWF-WWR) |
Literacy First vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
N/A |
-0.11 |
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.
-
62% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 7% Other or unknown 91% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 86% Not Hispanic or Latino 14% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 83% No FRPL 17%
Study Details
Setting
The study included 22 elementary schools in Austin Independent School District in Texas.
Study sample
Across all grades, 1,167 students were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 1,171 students were randomly assigned to the comparison group. The analytic sample included 903 students in the intervention group and 922 students in the comparison group, of whom 7 percent were Black, 2 percent were White, 5 percent were of another race, and the race of 86 percent of students was unspecified. Those 86 percent of study participants were Hispanic. Ten percent of students were in special education, 62 percent were limited English proficient, 51 percent were male, and 83 percent were economically disadvantaged,
Intervention Group
Literacy First provides tutors for K-2 students identified as reading below grade level. The program is designed to strengthen early reading and comprehension skills. Students receive daily 30-minute tutoring sessions from a trained tutor throughout the school year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual assistance available to students at their school, such as literacy coach support.
Support for implementation
Tutors received more than 70 hours of training in best practices, and received weekly follow-up visits from Literacy First experts and coaches.
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).