Effects of the HELPS Reading Fluency Program when Implemented by Classroom Teachers with Low-Performing Second-Grade Students
Begeny, John C.; Mitchell, R. Courtney; Whitehouse, Mary H.; Samuels, Fleming Harris; Stage, Scott A. (2011). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, v26 n3 p122-133. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ937411
-
examining59Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 Johnson III (WJ-III) Word Attack (WA) subtest |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) vs. Business as usual |
7 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.00 |
100.00 |
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
Rural
-
- 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
South
-
Race Black 29% Other or unknown 19% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in one rural school in the southeastern United States. Nine second-grade teachers participated, with four teachers randomly assigned to implement the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies program (HELPS) and five teachers assigned to the comparison condition.
Study sample
The study included 59 second-grade students. The average student age was 7.6 years. The sample was 53% White, 29% Black, and 5% Other Ethnicity. Additionally, 15% of students were Latino. The sample included 56% female students. Six students in the HELPS condition and four students in the comparison condition received special education services. Six students in the HELPS condition and five students in the comparison condition were retained in a previous grade. None of the students received English as a Second Language services.
Intervention Group
The HELPS intervention integrated eight evidence-based fluency-building strategies into a systematic program. Students received approximately 10-minute HELPS sessions three times per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) from mid-October through early April. The program incorporated repeated readings, modeled reading by an adult, systematic error-correction procedures, goal setting, performance feedback, and a reward system. Students received an average of 50 HELPS sessions throughout the study. Program materials included instructional reading passages, progress monitoring charts, and structured protocols for implementation. In all HELPS classrooms, the primary teacher and teacher assistant shared implementation responsibilities.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction without any exposure to the HELPS intervention. These students continued to participate in their classroom’s standard 90-minute daily language arts instruction and did not receive any additional targeted fluency intervention.
Support for implementation
HELPS teachers were trained in two 3-hour workshops held within one week of each other. The first workshop focused on acquainting teachers with the HELPS intervention. This workshop included a demonstration of HELPS implementation and offered teachers opportunities to practice specific components. In the second workshop, teachers practiced implementing the full HELPS protocol while receiving feedback from observers. All teachers demonstrated 100% implementation integrity during two consecutive practice sessions by the end of training. Throughout the study, implementation integrity was monitored regularly through systematic observations. Across teachers, the average percentage of steps implemented correctly from the primary Implementation Protocol was 96%, and from the Tips and Reminders sheet was 97%. Each teacher was observed at least 10 times throughout the 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, 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).