A Randomized Trial of a Computer-Assisted Tutoring Program Targeting Letter-Sound Expression
DuBois, Matthew R.; Volpe, Robert J.; Hemphill, Elizabeth M. (2014). School Psychology Review, v43 n2 p210-221. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1142183
-
examining30Students, gradesK-1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Computer-assisted tutoring program - DuBois et al. (2014))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter-sound Expression |
Computer-assisted tutoring program - DuBois et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
19.67 |
13.60 |
Yes |
|
|
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency |
Computer-assisted tutoring program - DuBois et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
30.40 |
16.86 |
Yes |
|
|
AIMSweb Letter Sound Fluency |
Computer-assisted tutoring program - DuBois et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
28.60 |
17.20 |
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.
-
60% 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
Massachusetts
-
Race Black 23% Other or unknown 77% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 77% Not Hispanic or Latino 23% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 89% No FRPL 11%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a single public elementary school in Massachusetts with students from three kindergarten classrooms and three grade 1 classrooms.
Study sample
Most of the children were 6 years old (60%) and in 1st grade (60%). Just over half (53%) were male, over three-quarters were Hispanic (77%), and more than half (60%) were English learners. About one-quarter (23%) were African American and 89% of students in the school were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Tutoring Buddy is a computer-assisted tutoring program. The program introduces individual letters and teaches letter sounds by presenting sounds unknown to the child in a string with alternating target unknown and known, using an approach called incremental rehearsal. This approach is meant to contrast with traditional drill approaches. Tutoring Buddy sessions lasted between 53 seconds and 11 minutes (approximately 2 minutes on average), and students did them at desks just outside their regular classrooms; graduate students facilitated the use of the software. This test of the intervention lasted 2 weeks over 8 consecutive school days of instruction.
Comparison Group
Comparison students were assigned to the wait list and were administered the intervention after the conclusion of the study.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were four school psychology graduate students who were trained to use Tutoring Buddy by the first author during one-hour individual sessions that included didactic instruction and role-play.
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).