Investigating the Effects and Social Validity of an Informational Text Structure Intervention for Reading and Writing in Grades Four and Five
Strong, John Z. (2023). Reading Psychology, v44 n7 p820-852. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1397959
-
examining351Students, grades4-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Read STOP Write)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Silent Reading Test |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
94.28 |
93.71 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Graphic Organizer |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.28 |
1.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-developed Text Structure Identification Test |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
8.17 |
7.15 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Ideas and Details |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
1.56 |
1.13 |
Yes |
|
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Signal Words |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
0.76 |
0.71 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Written Language (TOWL-4): Story Composition |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
9.61 |
9.42 |
No |
-- |
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Word Choice |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
1.76 |
1.61 |
No |
-- |
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Ending |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
0.43 |
0.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Researcher-developed Informational Reading and Writing Assessment: Introduction of Topic |
Read STOP Write vs. RARE Reading & Writing |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
0.81 |
0.87 |
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.
-
1% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural
-
- 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 33% Other or unknown 4% Two or more races 5% White 58% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 87% No FRPL 13%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three public elementary schools in one school district during grades 4 and 5 literacy instruction.
Study sample
Students in grades 4 and 5 were included in the study if they passed a screening assessment on decoding single-syllable words. The researchers randomly assigned 5 teachers with 185 students to the intervention group and 6 teachers with 220 students to the comparison group. The study analyzed results for 351 students taught by these teachers: 160 students in the intervention group and 191 students in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received Read STOP Write, a teacher-led program for students in grades 4 and 5 that connected reading and writing instruction using informational texts. The program taught students to recognize and use common informational text structures, including compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution, and sequence. In each lesson, students read an informational passage, found the main idea and supporting details, wrote a one-sentence summary, identified how the text was organized, used a graphic organizer for that text structure, planned an informational paragraph, and wrote about the topic using details from the passage. Teachers taught 16 lessons over 8 weeks. Each lesson took 2 days, with about 30 minutes of instruction per day during a 45-minute reading intervention block, for about 16 hours of instruction total.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received RARE Reading & Writing, a teacher-led literacy program focused on answering questions and writing summaries. The program used the same informational texts as Read STOP Write, but it did not teach students to identify or use informational text structures. In each lesson, students read an informational passage, identified the main idea and supporting details, answered comprehension questions using question-answer relationships, checked their answers, reread the passage, used a graphic organizer to put the main idea and details in their own words, and wrote a summary paragraph. Teachers taught 16 lessons over 8 weeks. Each lesson took 2 days, with about 30 minutes of instruction per day during a 45-minute reading intervention block, for about 16 hours of instruction total.
Support for implementation
Before instruction began, teachers attended a 2-hour training session on the goals, procedures, and materials for their assigned program. The training included a model lesson and time for teachers to practice delivering a lesson. During the 8 weeks of instruction, the researcher observed each teacher about once per week to monitor whether lessons were delivered as planned and provided feedback to support implementation.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Strong, J.Z. (2019). Effects of a text structure intervention for reading and writing in grades 4-5: A mixed methods experiment. Doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.
-
Strong, John Z. (2020). Investigating a Text Structure Intervention for Reading and Writing in Grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, v55 n4 p545-551.
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).