WWC review of this study

Improving student literacy in the Phoenix Union High School District 2003–04 and 2004–05: Final report. [READ 180 (Cohort 1) vs. business as usual]

White, R., Haslam, B. M., & Hewes, G. (2006). Policy Studies Associates. https://www.policystudies.com.

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    1,652
     Students
    , grades
    9-10

Reviewed: November 2021

At least one finding shows moderate evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Reading Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Stanford Achievement Test (9th edition; SAT-9), Reading Comprehension subtest

READ 180® vs. Unknown

0 Days

Cohort 1 (9th Grade 2003-2004);
1,652 students

31.40

30.10

Yes

 
 
5
 


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 53% English language learners
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Arizona
  • Race
    Other or unknown
    100%

Setting

The study took place in the Phoenix Union High School District in Arizona.

Study sample

The participants were ninth-grade students who were reading one or more grade levels below their assigned grade level. The analytic sample varied with the outcome measure. Of the intervention group in Cohort 1, 51 percent were eligible for English language learner (ELL) services and 8 percent were eligible for special education services. Of the comparison group in Cohort 1, 55 percent were eligible for ELL services and 8 percent were eligible for special education services. The study did not provide more details on the characteristics of students.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention group received the Scholastic’s READ 180 program, Version 1.6 for one year. The study provided no other information about the intervention.

Comparison Group

The study did not provide information on the comparison group, other than the comparison group students did not participate in READ 180.

Support for implementation

The study did not provide any information about implementation support.

Reviewed: November 2016

At least one finding shows moderate evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Literacy Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 2;
1,630 students

41.20

38.30

Yes

 
 
11
 

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 3;
2,058 students

39.00

38.10

Yes

 
 
3
 
Show Supplemental Findings

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 2 EL;
686 students

39.90

35.40

Yes

 
 
18

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 2 Low Score;
1,268 students

39.80

36.20

Yes

 
 
13

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 2 Non-EL;
944 students

42.00

40.50

Yes

 
 
6

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2 Semesters

Cohort 2 High Score;
362 students

46.10

45.60

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 42% English language learners

  • Female: 49%
    Male: 52%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Arizona
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    85%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    15%

Setting

The study took place in the Phoenix Union High School District in Arizona.

Study sample

All students in grades 9 and 10 who were reading one or more grade levels below their assigned grade level were considered for the study; however, the READ 180® program did not have space for all eligible students. Students in the READ 180® program were included in the study if they met all of the following criteria: • had two or more SRI scores at least 45 days apart (to allow for analysis of changes in SRI scores). • had Stanford 9 and/or TerraNova scores from both eighth and ninth grades. • had a matched nonparticipant available for the purposes of comparison. Students were matched on eighth-grade reading proficiency (measured by the Stanford 9 in 2003–04 and 2004–05 and the TerraNova in 2004–05 and 2005–06), EL status, special education eligibility, gender, and ethnicity. Four cohorts of students were studied: Cohort 1: This cohort included ninth graders in the 2003–04 school year. This cohort did not meet eligibility requirements specified in the Adolescent Literacy protocol because 53% of students from this cohort were eligible for EL services. Cohort 2: This cohort included 1,630 students in grade 9 in the 2004–05 school year. The sample included 815 students in each condition, among whom: 40% of the intervention (READ 180®) group and 44% of comparison group students were eligible for EL services, 7% of the intervention group and 10% of comparison group students were eligible for special education, 48% of the intervention group and 49% of comparison group were female, and 84% of the intervention group and 86% of comparison group students were Hispanic. Follow-up outcomes were collected 1 year later in tenth grade (2005–06). Although the additional source for this study (Scholastic Research and Results, 2008) indicated that there were 821 students in each condition, a query response received from the authors confirmed that there were 815 students in each group (as reported in White et al., 2006). Cohort 3: This cohort included 2,058 students in grade 9 in the 2005–06 school year. Although the White et al. (2006) article indicated that this cohort included only the intervention group, This cohort is discussed in Scholastic Research and Results (2008) but not in White et al. (2006). Scholastic Research and Results (2008) indicated that there was a comparison group for this cohort. The presence of a comparison group was confirmed by the authors’ response to a WWC query. Outcomes for this cohort are only available for ninth grade; tenth-grade follow-up outcomes are not available. Cohort 4: This cohort did not have a comparison group, and therefore, is ineligible for review.

Intervention Group

No information was provided in the report about the intervention except its name and version: Scholastic READ 180 program, Stage C, Version 1.6.

Comparison Group

No information was provided about the comparison condition.

Support for implementation

Support for implementation was not described in the report.

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

  • Scholastic Research and Results. (2008). READ 180: Longitudinal evaluation of a ninth-grade reading intervention (2003–2006). New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Reviewed: October 2009

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Comprehension outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

SAT-9: Reading Comprehension subtest

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2003-2004: Grade 9 post-test

Grade 9: Cohort 1;
1,652 students

31.40

30.10

Yes

 
 
5
 
Literacy Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

2004-2005: Grade 9 post-test

Grade 9: Cohort 2;
1,630 students

41.20

38.30

Yes

 
 
11
 

TerraNova Reading Test

READ 180® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 9: Cohort 3;
2,058 students

39.00

38.10

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 42% English language learners

  • Female: 48%
    Male: 52%

  • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Arizona
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    85%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    15%

Setting

The study took place in an urban school district in Phoenix, Arizona.

Study sample

Three cohorts of ninth-grade students who were reading one or more years below grade level participated in READ 180 in 12 schools. For cohort 1, a propensity score matching procedure was used to identify the subset of nonparticipants whose reading level and English language learner (ELL) eligibility were similar to those of students in the treatment group. For cohorts 2 and 3, a propensity score matching procedure was conducted to identify the comparison group; it was based on eighth-grade reading proficiency, ELL status, special-education eligibility, gender, and ethnicity. The cohort 1 analysis sample included 826 intervention students who received READ 180 in 2003–04 and 826 matched nonparticipants. The cohort 2 analysis sample consisted of 815 students who received READ 180 in 2004–05 and 815 matched nonparticipants. The cohort 3 analysis sample consisted of 1,029 students who received READ 180 in 2005–06 and 1,029 matched nonparticipants. The study reported students’ outcomes for all three cohorts after one year of program implementation; these findings can be found in Appendices A3.2 (cohort 1) and A3.3 (cohort 2 and cohort 3). Additional findings reflecting cohort 1 students’ outcomes two years after the start of the implementation of the intervention can be found in Appendix A4.2 (for at least some students, these findings reflect an additional semester of exposure to the intervention).

Intervention Group

The intervention group received READ 180, stage C, version 1.6. The study reported students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation.

Comparison Group

The comparison group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum.

Outcome descriptions

For cohort 1 and cohort 2, the authors used the Reading Comprehension subtest from the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9) as the pretest measure. For cohort 3, TerraNova reading scores were used as the pretest measure. For cohort 1, the SAT-9 Reading Comprehension subtest was used as the posttest, and the Reading Score on the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) was used as the second-year posttest. For cohort 2 and cohort 3, TerraNova reading scores were used as the posttest measure. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.

Support for implementation

No information on training for teachers or staff was provided in this study.

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

  • Papalewis, R. (2004). Struggling middle school readers: Successful, accelerating intervention. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 24–37.

  • Scholastic Research and Validation. (2008). Read 180: Longitudinal evaluation of a ninth-grade reading intervention (2003-2006). New York: Scholastic Inc.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top