Transfer between reading comprehension and word-problem solving among children with learning difficulty in both domains
Fuchs, Lynn S; Seethaler, Pamela M; Sterba, Sonya K; Fuchs, Douglas; Cutting, Laurie E; Mancilla-Martinez, Jeannette; Martin, BrittanyLee N; & Espinas, Daniel (in press). Journal of Educational Psychology.
-
examining137Students, grade2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Solving word problems using text structures - Fuchs et al. (2024))
- 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 |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Solving word problems |
Solving word problems using text structures - Fuchs et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
8.82 |
3.17 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Summarizing and organizing key information in text |
Solving word problems using text structures - Fuchs et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
24.97 |
13.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retelling key information from word problems |
Solving word problems using text structures - Fuchs et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
21.11 |
12.22 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Retelling key information from text |
Solving word problems using text structures - Fuchs et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
29.03 |
21.88 |
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.
-
45% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Suburban, 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
South
-
Race Asian 2% Black 41% Other or unknown 2% White 55% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Not Hispanic or Latino 52% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 55% No FRPL 45%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in second grade classrooms nested within 21 schools in one large urban/suburban school district in the southeast United States.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 137 grade 2 children, including 67 children in the word problems intervention condition and 70 children in the business as usual comparison condition. The sample was 50 percent female, and 45 percent of the children in the sample were English learner students while 55 percent were eligible for free or reduced price meals. The racial and ethnic composition of the sample was 2 percent Asian, 41 percent Black, 55 percent White, and 2 percent some other race; 48 percent of the sample was of Hispanic ethnicity. The study did not report information about student disability status.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a text-structure word-problem solving program adapted from a validated second-grade schema-based intervention (Vanderbilt Pirate Math). The intervention relied on schema instruction to teach cause–effect and compare–contrast text structures using word problems with numerals. Children were taught to conceptualize word problems as belonging to specific problem types and to apply a structured problem-solving strategy involving close reading, analytical reasoning, and use of text-structure vocabulary in conjunction with a word-problem type diagram or equation aligned to the problem structure. The intervention included 45 lessons delivered individually to students in three 30-minute sessions per week over 15 weeks, supplemental to regular classroom instruction. Each lesson consisted of three components: (1) timed practice in foundational skills (e.g., word reading or arithmetic) using flashcards; (2) explicit instruction in the word-problem text-structure strategy; and (3) independent practice in which students applied previously taught skills and strategies. Lessons also included instruction in foundational skills such as symbolic knowledge, counting strategies, two-digit computation, solving for missing quantities, interpreting graphs and charts, and relevant vocabulary.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received the typical general education instruction and other activities provided in their classrooms.
Support for implementation
An initial workshop was provided to the research team members who served as interventionists. During the workshop, the intervention was introduced and modeled with practice and corrective feedback to the interventionists. Lesson guides were provided for the interventionists to study, although they were instructed not read verbatim from the guides during implementation. Weekly meetings allowed the interventionists to provide updates, discuss challenges, and problem solve with the intervention developers (the first and second authors of 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, 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).