The Efficacy of a Content Area Reading Comprehension Intervention for Students with Disabilities
Sharon Vaughn; Jeanne Wanzek; Leticia R. Martinez; Eleanor M. Hancock; Anna-Mari Fall; S. Blair Payne; Sally K. Fluhler (2025). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED670919
-
examining772Students, grade8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Promoting Adolescents' Comprehension of Text (PACT))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with high individual-level non-response, but provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge Acquisition, Multiple Choice (ASK-MC) |
Promoting Adolescents' Comprehension of Text (PACT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
26.15 |
23.78 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Assessment of Social Studies Knowledge Acquisition, Multiple Choice (ASK-MC) |
Promoting Adolescents' Comprehension of Text (PACT) vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
23.23 |
25.44 |
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: 48%
Male: 46%
Other or unknown: 6% -
Rural, 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 Asian 1% Black 6% Native American 1% Other or unknown 40% Two or more races 1% White 51% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 34% Other or unknown 66% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in eighth-grade U.S. History classes within 20 middle schools across seven school districts in two southern U.S. states.
Study sample
The study authors randomly assigned 111 U.S. History eight-grade class sections into a group being offered the intervention (56 sections) and a comparison group that was not offered the intervention (55 sections). The class sections were taught by 28 teachers, and a total of 893 students consented to participate in the study. The author reports that 51% of students in the study were White, 34% were Hispanic or Latino, and 7% were eligible for special education.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received Promoting Adolescents’ Comprehension of Text (PACT) instruction from their teachers. PACT is a content-area literacy intervention designed to improve students’ knowledge acquisition and reading comprehension. Instructors were trained on delivering four core components of PACT: (1) “Comprehension canopy,” which is used to introduce and engage students with new content; (2) “Essential words,” which consist of teaching five essential words/concepts which will be reinforced throughout the course of the class; (3) “Context text acquisition,” in which students interact with information for primary and secondary texts; and (4) “Team based learning,” where students work in groups to complete problem solving tasks. Teachers implemented PACT instructional practices daily for three units, each containing about 15 instructional days. In total, students in intervention class sections received about 45 days of PACT instruction across the school year.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction. Teachers who were trained in PACT but had comparison group class sections were instructed to not use any PACT materials in those sections.
Support for implementation
Teachers were trained in using the PACT core components in a seven-hour workshop that was delivered by research personnel. Teachers were provided with lesson plans, instructional materials, and coaching throughout training. Teachers also received support during implementation from coaches. They received one or two in-person teaching observations and subsequent feedback sessions during Unit 1. Teachers also received an intervention booster after Unit 1. Teachers continued to meet with their coaches throughout Units 2 and 3 at varied intervals but met, at minimum, once per week.
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).