Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Austin Independent School District, 2004–05.
Haslam, M. B., White, R. N., & Klinge, A. (2006). Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
-
examining614Students, grades7-8
READ 180® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2016
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.READ 180® Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2009
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 7 and 8;
|
23.90 |
22.10 |
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.
-
90% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
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 Asian 1% Black 3% White 1% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 95% Not Hispanic or Latino 5%
Study Details
Setting
From the initial pool of 409 READ 180 students in grades 7 and 8 who scored at least one reading level below grade level, 307 students were matched to 307 comparison students using a one-to-one propensity score matching method. Although the percentage of Limited English Proficiency students turned out to be significantly higher in the READ 180 group (89%) than in the comparison group (73%), the groups were equivalent on the pretest achievement measure. In all, 307 students in the READ 180 group and 307 students in the comparison group were included in the analysis sample.
Study sample
The study took place in seventh- and eighth-grade classrooms in the Austin Independent School District (AISD) in Texas.
Intervention Group
Data on students’ exposure to the READ 180 software were not provided in this study. The study reported student outcomes after one year of program implementation.
Comparison Group
The comparison group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum.
Outcome descriptions
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the English-language version of the 2004 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Reading Test. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1.
Support for implementation
No information on training for teachers or staff was provided in this study.
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, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, 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).