Effectiveness of an Occupational Therapy Reading Program for Low Socioeconomic First and Second Graders in an Urban Elementary School: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study
Arnaud, L. Mari; Gutman, Sharon A. (2020). Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools & Early Intervention, v13 n3 p302-319. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1268707
-
examining21Students, grades1-2
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.72 |
77.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.00 |
92.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Subtest (PDE) |
Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.45 |
83.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dolch Sight Word List |
Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
97.45 |
81.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency Subtest |
Occupational therapy reading program – Arnaud & Gutman (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.36 |
82.70 |
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: 38%
Male: 62% -
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
Northeast
-
Race Black 71% Other or unknown 24% White 5% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in the library in one charter elementary school located in a large metropolitan city in the northeastern United States. Students came from four classrooms in grades 1 and 2. The study did not report the school district.
Study sample
The study included 21 students in grades 1 and 2 who spoke English and whose teachers identified them as reading below grade level based on the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System in the fifth month of the school year. The study excluded students with behavioral or developmental needs that could make participation difficult, including students with autism spectrum disorder or severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The researchers randomly assigned 11 students to the intervention group and 10 students to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
The occupational therapy reading program aimed to build early reading skills and help students take part more often in reading activities. Students received the program for 10 weeks along with the reading instruction normally provided by the school. Each week, in addition to their traditional classroom reading instruction, students met with the occupational therapist for one 30-minute session individually and one 30-minute session with one other student. Program activities gave students practice with early reading skills through games, movement, sensory activities, crafts, and reading materials connected to students’ interests. The occupational therapist also helped students plan ways to read at home, such as keeping books in a safe place and choosing someone at home they could read with or read to.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the school’s usual reading instruction. The school provided a 45-minute reading lesson in a large group each day and a 30-minute reading lesson in a small group each week. Teachers and aides led these lessons. The instruction mainly involved desk-based reading activities using worksheets and workbooks.
Support for implementation
The study authors developed intervention guidelines and a checklist to support consistent delivery of the occupational therapy reading program. The occupational therapist who delivered the intervention had 11 years of experience providing services in elementary schools. A second occupational therapist with 27 years of experience observed two 30-minute sessions each week and used the checklist to assess whether the interventionist followed the program guidelines. The two occupational therapists also met weekly for 1 hour to discuss program delivery. The study reported that the interventionist followed an average of 95% of the intervention guidelines across the 10-week program.
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).