Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2008). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v21 n9 p929-963. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ815903
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 |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
105.02 |
99.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
97.82 |
90.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
96.14 |
94.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
25.72 |
27.72 |
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 |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
96.26 |
92.38 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Reading Rate |
Sound Partners vs. business as usual |
Dec to May/June |
Kindergarten;
|
10.32 |
6.84 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 8% | |
| Black | 23% | |
| Other or unknown | 20% |
| Hispanic | 16% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 84% |
The study took place in 13 urban public elementary schools.
Full-day kindergarten teachers in 13 urban public elementary schools were asked to identify students who would benefit from intensive additional reading instruction. Of the referred students with parental consent, 99 met eligibility criteria based on scoring below cutoff scores on DIBELS tests. After dropping one student (who was the only student in one classroom to be eligible), the other 98 students who met eligibility standards were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups (one in which tutoring occurred one-on-one, and one in which tutoring occurred in pairs) or to the comparison group using an algorithm that compensated for the fact that students in the pair tutoring group needed to be assigned in pairs within the same classroom. Pretests were given in December and posttests at the end of the school year.
Paraeducators, equipped with 70 scripted lessons with seven to eight activities per lesson, worked with students individually for 30 minutes a day, four days a week, for 18 weeks. Tutoring was conducted during the school day in a quiet nearby school space. Typically, 20 minutes were devoted to phonics and 10 minutes to oral reading practice using Bob Books®, although the tutors were free to adjust this to meet individual student needs. For tutoring in pairs, the same general approach was followed, but two students were tutored at once. If one student was ahead of the other, then the tutor focused on the student who was behind while the other student read silently for part of the time. This review focuses on the combined effect of the two tutoring groups compared to the group that did not receive tutoring. The study does not identify the intervention as Sound Partners, although the developer verified that this study included Sound Partners instruction.
Control group students received a variety of Title I, ESL, and special education services available to all students in the study schools. The control students did not receive supplemental tutoring.
The study addresses the alphabetics domain using a set of standardized tests (DIBELS, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing [CTOPP], Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Test of Word Reading Efficiency [TOWRE]), the reading comprehension domain using a standardized test (Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative Update [WRMT-R/NU] Passage Comprehension subtest), and the reading fluency domain using an author-developed measure that is similar to standardized tests of reading fluency. The study also includes a spelling assessment, but it is not included in this review because it is outside the scope of the Beginning Reading review protocol. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.3.
Twenty-one paraeducators were hired by schools on the basis of their interest in working with children, prior tutoring experience, and scheduling flexibility. The paraeducators averaged 3.3 years of prior tutoring experience. They were trained in an initial two-hour session. Follow-up training was provided throughout the intervention, along with coaching for paraeducators with less experience and/or low initial intervention fidelity ratings.
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