Stockard, J. (2010). Eugene, OR: National Institute for Direct Instruction.
Reviewed: November 2013
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 Mastery.
Reviewed: August 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 Reading Mastery.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as usual |
Winter 2010 |
Grade 4;
|
149.00 |
134.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 100% |
The study was conducted in a midwestern elementary school.
In this randomized study, 58 general education elementary students were assigned to a treatment or control condition, using alternative assignment with a random start technique. The author used a class list (arranged in alphabetical order) to conduct the assignment. First, the author used a random numbers table to determine where to begin in the class list. Second, the author used a coin flip to determine whether the assignment would start with the treatment or control group. Finally, after this initial assignment was determined, the author assigned each additional student in an alternating fashion to the treatment or control group. For example, in the first step, the author might have started the assignment with John Smith (based on a random numbers table). In the second step, the author might have assigned John Smith to the treatment group (based on the coin flip). Then, the author would have proceeded through the rest of the ordered class list (alternating between the control and treatment groups). Four classrooms participated in the study. Two pairs of teachers were formed and then—within these pairs—teachers were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group via a coin flip. Students were predominantly non-Hispanic whites from middle-income families. The analysis sample consisted of 29 fourth-grade students who received Reading Mastery and 28 fourth-grade students in the comparison group.
Beginning in the fall of 2009, students in the treatment condition received instruction for 90 minutes a day in the SRA/McGraw-Hill program, Reading Mastery Signature Edition. Students were exposed to Reading Mastery over five months.
The control group received instruction for 90 minutes a day in the Scott Foresman Basal Reading Program, which the school had been using in prior years.
Data on the AIMS Web Curriculum-Based Measurement Words Read Correct were gathered in the spring of 2009 before instruction began (for use as a baseline measure), in the fall of 2009 shortly after the start of the school year, and again in winter of 2010, approximately halfway through the school year. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2.1.
No information about training was provided.
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