Effects of a Tier 2 Intervention on Literacy Measures: Lessons Learned
Kerins, Marie R.; Trotter, Dawn; Schoenbrodt, Lisa (2010). Child Language Teaching and Therapy, v26 n3 p287-302. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ899065
-
examining20Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Single Study Review (findings for Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Individual Language Assessment (ILA): Segmenting |
Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.91 |
6.56 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest (PDE) |
Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.27 |
4.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Language Assessment (ILA): Blending |
Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.27 |
8.67 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Language Assessment (ILA): Sounds in Words |
Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.36 |
23.56 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency Subtest |
Phonological awareness and multi-sensory phonics instruction - Kerins et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.18 |
23.22 |
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.
-
Female: 20%
Male: 80% -
Suburban
-
- 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
Maryland
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in general education first grade classrooms in one suburban elementary school in Maryland, US.
Study sample
Twenty-three students were randomly assigned. The analytic sample included 20 first graders: 11 in the treatment group and 9 in the control group. The mean age of students in the sample was 6 years 5 months. The gender distribution of students in the sample was 80% male and 20% female. While race and ethnicity data were not reported, it was noted that all students attended a Title I suburban public school in southern Maryland, which serves a high percentage of children from low-income families. Students were identified for this study based on being at risk of reading difficulties from their kindergarten Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills scores.
Intervention Group
The intervention was provided by an in-school speech-language pathologist (a second year graduate student supervised by a certified speech-language pathologist) who provided small group instruction to students and a special educator who provided multi-sensory reading instruction to students. The intervention took place outside of typical classroom instruction, during self-selected reading or center-time. Groups of 6 students received 30 minutes of direct phonological awareness instruction from the speech-language pathologist, for a total of 60-90 minutes/week over 15 sessions for 8 weeks (7.5 hours total). Following the phonological awareness sessions, the students received an additional 18 30-minute sessions of multi-sensory phonics instructions over 9 weeks from the special educator (9 total hours). The speech-language pathologist sessions included: articulators, cognate pairs, real words, and encoding/decoding consonant-vowel-consonant words using blending and segmenting tasks. Students were instructed in segmenting and blending non-words using colored blocks using word lists from the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (LIPS). In the sessions with the special educator, students were exposed to the Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory approach to reading instruction in sound-symbol correspondence and segmenting and blending of real words and non-words. In addition to the sessions with the speech-language pathologist and special educator, students received their standard Houghton-Mifflin reading program for 50 minutes daily.
Comparison Group
The comparison group participated in the district's Houghton-Mifflin reading program for 50 minutes daily.
Support for implementation
Implementation support was provided through weekly collaboration sessions between the speech-language pathologist and the special educator. These sessions lasted 60 minutes each week and focused on monitoring student progress, coordinating lesson plans, and ensuring alignment between phonological awareness instruction and multi-sensory phonics instruction.
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).