Year One Results from the Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery
May, Henry; Gray, Abigail; Sirinides, Philip; Goldsworthy, Heather; Armijo, Michael; Sam, Cecile; Gillespie, Jessica N.; Tognatta, Namrata (2015). American Educational Research Journal, v52 n3 p547-581 Jun 2015. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063567
-
examining6,888Students, grade1
Reading Recovery® Intervention Report - Study Review Protocol
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Reading Recovery®.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OS): Total Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
495.37 |
451.88 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Total Reading Scale Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
138.71 |
135.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OS): Total Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Learners;
|
493.30 |
440.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Writing Vocabulary Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.80 |
27.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Ohio Word Test |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.60 |
10.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Concepts about Print Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.20 |
15.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Total Reading Scale Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First year cohort;
|
139.20 |
135.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Words Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First year cohort;
|
141.20 |
136.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Comprehension Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First year cohort;
|
140.00 |
135.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Total Reading Scale Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Learners;
|
137.80 |
134.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
33.10 |
29.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Words Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Learners;
|
139.30 |
135.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Comprehension Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English Learners;
|
139.10 |
135.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Comprehension Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
139.82 |
135.92 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Reading Words Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
140.55 |
136.98 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Letter Identification Subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
52.10 |
51.10 |
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.
-
19% English language learners -
Female: 40%
Male: 60% -
- 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
Midwest, Northeast, South, West
-
Race Black 13% Other or unknown 44% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Other or unknown 81% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 55% No FRPL 45%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 1,254 elementary schools in school districts located across the United States. Students enrolled in the study were in grade 1 classrooms.
Study sample
A total of 6,888 students in grade 1 who needed additional support in reading participated in the study. Approximately 60% of the students were male, and 19% were English learners. Forty-three percent were White, 13% were Black, and 44% were another race. Nineteen percent were Hispanic or Latino. In the schools in which the study was conducted, 55% of students were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
Reading Recovery is a supplemental pull-out intervention provided during the regular school day to students who need additional support in reading in grade 1. The program consists of daily, 30-minute, one-on-one instructional activities delivered by trained teachers. Typically, a student’s Reading Recovery intervention period lasts between 12 and 20 weeks. During the sessions, teachers observe students’ literacy behaviors, identify specific learning needs, and tailor and continually refine instruction in response to students’ progress.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received regular classroom literacy instruction and had access to literacy supports that were normally provided to students in grade 1 who need additional support in reading.
Support for implementation
Reading Recovery teachers participate in a year-long graduate course and are overseen by a Reading Recovery trainer at one of the regional university-based training centers. Teachers in training receive on-site coaching and support from their teacher leaders. Practicing Reading Recovery teachers continue to receive coaching from their teacher leaders and participate in “behind the glass” sessions periodically in which observers offer feedback on lessons taught in real time behind a two-way mirror.
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.
-
Sirinides, Philip; Gray, Abigail; May, Henry. (2018). The Impacts of Reading Recovery at Scale: Results from the 4-Year i3 External Evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v40 n3 p316-335.
-
May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
-
Schwartz, Robert M.; Lomax, Richard. (2018). Secondary Analysis of the Reading Recovery Four-Year i3 Scale-Up. Online Submission, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (25th, United Kingdom, 2018).
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).