Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A.; Peyton, Julia A. (2006). Journal of Educational Psychology, v98 n3 p508-528. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742197
Reviewed: September 2010
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 Sound Partners.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Word Reading Accuracy subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
98.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
5.94 |
3.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
93.00 |
90.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
8.58 |
4.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
88.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
21.00 |
20.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
89.00 |
87.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Reading Rate |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
6.00 |
2.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 87% |
The study was conducted in 19 full-day kindergarten classrooms in 9 elementary schools.
Seventy-five kindergarten students were recruited to participate in the study after having been identified by their teachers as needing additional reading instruction. Students also had to meet eligibility screens for the study by receiving low scores on a range of reading pretests. Thirty-nine students were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 36 were assigned to the comparison group. Three students from the intervention group and five students from the comparison group dropped out of the study, yielding a final analysis sample of 36 students in the intervention group and 31 students in the comparison group. Outcomes were assessed immediately after the 18-week intervention period and again one year later, during the spring of the students’ first-grade year. However, the first-year follow-up results do not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention is confounded with another mentoring program.
Students in the intervention group received individualized reading instruction from a trained paraeducator for 30 minutes a day, four days per week, for 18 weeks. Paraeducators taught students using a series of 62 scripted lessons, with three to four activities per lesson. The first 20 minutes of tutoring focused on phonics activities from the scripted lessons. During the last 10 minutes of tutoring, the students read aloud from Bob Books®. Most children read independently, but some read the story with the tutors (either echo reading or partner reading). Students completed an average of 47 lessons during the 18 weeks.
Students in the comparison group received their regular reading instruction and services.
Outcomes were assessed on eight measures: (1) DIBELS Letter Name Fluency subtest, (2) CTOPP phonological awareness composite, (3) Word Reading Accuracy subtest of the WRMT-R/NU, (4) TOWRE, (5) DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest, (6) DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency subtest, (7) an oral reading fluency test, and (8) the Passage Comprehension subtest of the WRMT-R/NU. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1– A2.3. The study also assessed outcomes on the Revised Spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised (WRAT-R), but that outcome is excluded from this review because it falls outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review protocol.
The 11 paraeducators in this study were hired as employees of the school district. All but four had prior tutoring experience, and five had prior experience working with kindergarten students. Their average education level was 14 years, and six tutors had more than a high school education.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube