An Evaluation of a Multicomponent Early Literacy Program for Students with Severe Developmental Disabilities
Browder, Diane; Ahlgrim-Delzell, Lynn; Flowers, Claudia; Baker, Joshua (2012). Remedial and Special Education, v33 n4 p237-246. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976433
-
examining92Students, gradesK-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment - Conventions of Reading |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.25 |
18.31 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonverbal Literacy Assessment - Phonic Skills |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
67.66 |
52.86 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) |
Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) vs. Edmark Reading Program |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
27.77 |
22.67 |
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: 40%
Male: 60% -
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 Black 57% Other or unknown 12% White 31% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 37% No FRPL 41% Other or unknown 23%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in a large urban school system in the southeastern United States. The intervention took place in special education classrooms across three academic years between 2004 and 2007.
Study sample
The sample for this study consisted of 93 students with severe developmental disabilities. In the randomly-assigned sample, 47 students were assigned to the intervention group and 46 were assigned to the comparison group. In the analytic sample, 47 students were in the intervention group and 45 students were included in the comparison group. About 56% of the randomly-assigned sample were classified as having "moderate or severe" disabilities, about 36.6% had Autism, and about 6.5% had multiple disabilities.
Intervention Group
The students assigned to the intervention group received instruction using the Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB) for an academic year. The ELSB comprises two parts: Building with Symbols and Building with Stories. Building with Symbols teaches vocabulary, comprehension, early phonics skills, and phonemic awareness through the reading and identification of vocabulary sight words. Building with Stories engages students in a read-aloud event and teaches students to engage with tasks including identifying titles and authors, turning book pages, identifying vocabulary words, completing a repeated story line, and answering comprehension questions.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were instructed in literacy skills using Edmark, a standard curriculum designed for students with moderate to severe developmental disabilities. The Edmark series introduces students to over 300 sight words. Students are then asked to point to the sight word within a group of other words. Words are introduced within a sequence that allows students to read and understand short sentences when words are combined into phrases. Story Book lessons are also included in Edmark, where students use their learned words in stories and engage in comprehension checks. The comparison group also received a supplemental daily lesson from the ELSB Building with Stories component, which engaged the control group in read-aloud activities.
Support for implementation
All participating teachers implemented both intervention and comparison conditions, and received a full-day training on how to properly implement both curricula. Teachers also received ongoing implementation support from a member of the research team. Additionally, the research team monitored and measured implementation fidelity through ongoing observation and completion of checklists listing each intervention's core components.
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).