Evaluation of an Expansion Strategy for the Assessment-to-Instruction Professional Support System
Zhu, Pei; Alterman, Emma; Commins, Nicholas; Nash, Peyton (2023). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED628971
-
examining3,837Students, grades1-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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/district ELA standardized test |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Letters2Meaning - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
631.48 |
627.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Match Game - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
486.79 |
486.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
394.73 |
394.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Letters2Meaning - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
584.02 |
583.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Match Game - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
492.46 |
492.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Letters2Meaning - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
525.63 |
528.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Word Match Game - A2i Assessment |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
480.04 |
480.42 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
390.18 |
392.47 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 4th ed. (GRMT-4): Vocabulary subtest |
Assessment-to-Intervention (A2i) Professional Support System vs. Face-to-face instruction |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
406.74 |
404.83 |
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.
-
36% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Other or unknown: 51% -
Rural, Suburban, Town, Urban
-
Race Asian 4% Black 4% Other or unknown 64% White 28% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 59% Other or unknown 41% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted across 4 states, in 20 districts, and 59 elementary schools.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 30 schools with 2,372 students to the intervention group and 29 schools with 2,361 students to the comparison group. The main analytic sample, outcomes reported in year 3, included 20 schools with 1,888 students in the intervention group and 20 schools with 1,960 students in the comparison group. Students started the study in grade 1 and were followed through their third grade year. Approximately 49% of the students were female, 36% were English learners, and 9% had an Individualized Education Plan. Of the students in the study, 28% were White, 4% were Black, 4% were Asian, less than 1% were Native American, and 64% did not report race. Sixty percent were Hispanic or Latino and 40% did not report ethnicity. Free/reduced lunch status is not reported. Although the authors do use a low-income background status in the study, this is reported to be different across states/districts.
Intervention Group
The Assessment-to-Instruction (A2i) Professional development system was implemented for the intervention. The A2i was administered in both the intervention and comparison groups. However, the intervention group of interest used a mixed-model of delivery for the A2i system. Normally, the A2i system is delivered face-to-face (like in the comparison group), but this study looked at whether the system would be just as effective if delivered in a virtual, less strict setting. The A2i system is a suite of technology that aims to facilitate differentiated small-group instruction. Teachers in the intervention group received professional development, both in-person and virtual. Teachers administered the A2i assessments at the beginning of the fall semester as a proxy for their reading performance. These assessments are used to help teachers then differentiate instruction for groups of students. Assessments are administered several times per year to help teachers understand students' skills and to modify instruction as necessary.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition also used the A2i professional development system. However, all teachers in the comparison condition received professional development and support in a face-to-face setting.
Support for implementation
The A2i teacher professional development was delivered by coaches employed by Learning Ovations, who support schools in one or more districts. Each school also identifies an administrator and Literacy Coach who receive A2i professional development so that they can support teachers' use of the professional development system.
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).