Springfield-Chicopee School Districts Striving Readers (SR) Program. Final Report Years 1-5: Evaluation of Implementation and Impact [READ 180 vs. business as usual]
Sprague, Kimberley; Zaller, Colleen; Kite, Anita; Hussar, Karen (2012). Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED600926
-
examining456Students, grade9
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for READ 180®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, Edition 4 (SDRT-4) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample - Read 180 vs BAU (complete cases ITT);
|
24.14 |
21.75 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
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
Massachusetts
-
Race Other or unknown 73% White 27%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in five schools within two school districts, Chicopee and Springfield, in western Massachusetts.
Study sample
The study was conducted with five separate cohorts across five academic years. In each of the five study years, ninth-grade students in five study schools were screened for eligibility before random assignment. Students at least two—but less than four—grade levels behind in reading performance for their grade level were selected to participate in the study. Students were excluded from the sample if (1) they had an Individualized Education Program that specified reading supports not compatible with Xtreme Reading; (2) they lacked sufficient English language proficiency; (3) their parents opted them out of the study; (4) they were enrolled in an off-campus evening school; (5) they were deemed not to be a “struggling reader” based on grade history and past scores on the English language arts state test; or (6) they could not be located in school enrollment records. The authors separately contrasted the literacy outcomes of students in the Xtreme Reading condition to those of students in the READ 180® and business-as-usual conditions. There were 456 students in the analytic sample for the Read 180® vs. business as usual comparison group contrast. Seventy-one percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Eighteen percent of students had an Individualized Education Plan. Three percent of students were English language learners. The sample was 43% male and 57% female. Twenty-seven percent of students were White, and 73% were not specified.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The READ 180® intervention was delivered as a 90-minute daily supplement to the standard ninth-grade English language arts (ELA) course. A typical daily session included 20 minutes of whole-class instruction, 60 minutes of small-group breakouts involving direct instruction, independent work using program software, and modeled or independent reading. In addition, the intervention included recommended instructional strategies and instructional materials, including videos and interactive work texts. The READ 180® curriculum was paced to be completed over 125-145 school days; the average number of sessions attended by each student was not reported.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received the standard ELA course (as did students in the intervention condition), as well as supplemental services ordinarily available to all students. In practice, comparison group students had minimal access to supplemental services. None of the comparison group teachers reported having any past experience with the READ 180® program, and they did not receive formal professional development in literacy instruction beyond what was customarily provided to all teachers. The use of multimedia appears to have been much more limited in the comparison group than in the intervention group.
Support for implementation
Teachers implementing the intervention were required to participate in professional development activities. Those implementing READ 180® for the first time were required to complete 52 hours of professional development over the course of the year in online training (7 sessions), group seminars (up to 30 hours), and individual face-to-face sessions (up to 16 hours). Less professional development was required of more experienced users: teachers with 3 years of prior READ 180® experience had to complete only 8 hours of professional development, and those implementing their fifth year did not have to complete any professional development.
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).