Evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Program in kindergarten 2005–06.
Powers, S., & Price-Johnson, C. (2006). Tucson, AZ: Creative Research Associates. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501576
-
examining1,888Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Waterford Early Reading Program)
- 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 |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
43.00 |
40.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) - Initial Sounds Fluency subtest |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
21.20 |
17.32 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Core Curriculum Standard Assessment (CCSA) Reading Performance |
Waterford Early Reading Program vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
2.62 |
2.41 |
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.
-
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
Arizona
Study Details
Setting
The setting of the study was Arizona. The participants came from the kindergarten programs in 25 Title I elementary schools in the Tucson Unified School District in the 2005-2006 school year. The intervention involved the use of a software in classroom. The authors did not observe the classroom; therefore, the authors did not provide information about class size and instructional configuration (e.g., whole class, small group, individual instruction).
Study sample
The study does not indicate that the students had identified learning disabilities. The study indicates that 48 percent of WERP students and 68 percent of the comparison group had English as a primary language, indicating that the sample did not wholly consist of ELL students.
Intervention Group
The authors did not observe the classroom and thus they provided only a minimum description of the intervention. The treatment used was the WERP software. The software was installed on classroom computers to help supplement the district reading program. The WERP also distributed teacher manuals, videos, worksheets and other classroom and take-home materials. As recommended by the Waterford institution, kindergarteners took turns in using the four to six computers in the classroom for 15 minutes at a time. This study addresses implementation only to the extent that students used the WERP software. --The intervention was a full curriculum --Number of lessons and frequency, not reported --Duration of sessions and intervention as a whole, not reported --No home component --The teachers implemented the intervention --Materials used: the WERP, a software program to teach young children how to read, write and keyboard. --The intervention was not scripted --There was no formative assessment of teachers.
Comparison Group
Business as usual.
Support for implementation
The authors did not provide any support for implementation.
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, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, 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).