Is Computer-Aided Instruction an Effective Tier-One Intervention for Kindergarten Students at Risk for Reading Failure in an Applied Setting?
Kreskey, Donna DeVaughn; Truscott, Stephen D. (2016). Contemporary School Psychology, v20 n2 p142-151. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1099524
-
examining102Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Headsprout Early Reading)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Headsprout Early Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
40.00 |
44.45 |
No |
-- |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Word Fluency subtest |
Headsprout Early Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.10 |
32.47 |
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.
-
2% English language learners -
Female: 42%
Male: 58% -
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
South
-
Race Asian 2% Black 30% Other or unknown 9% Two or more races 4% White 55% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 33% No FRPL 67%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 10 elementary schools within a single school district.
Study sample
The study included kindergarten students who were identified as at risk for reading failure based on fall screening results. Students were screened using DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency and Initial Sound Fluency benchmark assessments administered at the beginning of the kindergarten year. Students were included in the study if they were enrolled in the district for the full school year and were not repeating kindergarten. In total, the study included 102 students, with half in the intervention group and the other half in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Headsprout Early Reading is a computer-based reading program designed to support early literacy development. The program introduces letters and sounds, teaches decoding strategies, and provides fluency practice. Instruction adapts to students’ learning rate and is divided into episodes, or animated sessions, lasting about 20 minutes each. After each set of six episodes, an adult assesses each student's mastery of the content and determines whether the student should advance to the next set of episodes. The study required all students in the intervention group to have completed at least 25 of the 40 episodes that Headsprout recommended for kindergarten students, and on average they completed 34 episodes. Schools in the study implemented Headsprout either before school or during a school period other than the language arts instructional period. Students in the intervention group therefore received their school’s regular classroom reading instruction in addition to Headsprout.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group did not use Headsprout Early Reading. These students received the school’s regular reading instruction and any supports typically available to students identified as at risk for reading difficulties.
Support for implementation
At least one administrator or teacher from each school attended a four-hour workshop in which the Headsprout Corporation provided training on record-keeping. During implementation, Headsprout and district instructional technology staff also provided technical support. Schools in the study did not receive additional equipment or personnel for implementation of the 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).