Evaluating Paraeducator-Led Reading Interventions in Elementary School: A Multi-Cutoff Regression-Discontinuity Analysis
Jones, Eli; Larsen, Ross; Sudweeks, Richard R.; Young, K. Richard; Gibb, Gordon S. (2018). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v11 n4 p507-534. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1202592
-
examining210Students, gradesK-5
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Publication (findings for i-Ready)
- Regression Discontinuity Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a regression discontinuity design that partially satisfies the integrity of the forcing variable, attrition and baseline equivalence, continuity, and functional form and bandwidth standards.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II—Brief Form Reading test (KTEA-II BFR) |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
i-Ready vs. Comparison;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II—Brief Form Reading test (KTEA-II BFR) |
i-Ready vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
i-Ready vs. Direct Instruction (DI);
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
14% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
Midwest
-
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 took place in a Title 1 elementary school in an urbanized area in the Midwestern U.S.
Study sample
Sample characteristics of the i-Ready vs. comparison (business-as-usual) sample, which is the main contrast of interest, included 50 students in i-Ready and 160 students in the comparison condition. This study sample was 47 percent female, 14 percent were English learners, and 6 percent had an individualized education plan (IEP).
Intervention Group
Reading interventions at the elementary school were scheduled in one-hour blocks for each grade level and occurred daily Monday through Thursday for 30 weeks of the school year beginning in September and ending in May. During the one-hour reading block, students qualifying for Tier 2 reading interventions spent about 30–40 minutes in Tier 2 instruction. Tier 2 students in the upper grades (grades 4–6) averaged slightly more time in interventions (35–40 minutes) and slightly less time in business-as-usual activities relative to lower grades (grades 1–3). The Direct Instruction (DI) Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) intervention uses scripted, teacher-directed instruction to help students achieve mastery criteria for reading fluency, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling (Reid, 1996). The school used two Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) reading programs as part of its Response to Intervention (RtI) framework: Reading Plus (2013), and i-Ready (2013). I-Ready is an adaptive computer program with reading instruction, practice, and assessment components. Reading Plus, which is outside the scope of this review, is a web-based reading intervention that provides silent reading practice that allows students to work at their own pace.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated only in business-as-usual reading activities during the reading block. Tier 2 reading interventions were administered primarily by paraeducators.
Support for implementation
Paraeducators received training on scripted directives, monitoring student responses, and following up to inaccurate or nonresponse.
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).