Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1995). Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Reviewed: March 2017
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 Success for All®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
|
53.67 |
47.82 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
|
23.58 |
19.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
|
27.11 |
24.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
|
63.56 |
62.03 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
|
27.16 |
26.78 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
|
60.73 |
60.28 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
|
61.45 |
48.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention;
|
0.12 |
-0.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
|
25.09 |
20.25 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention;
|
0.08 |
-0.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1-2;
|
0.01 |
0.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/ Cohorts 1-2;
|
-0.07 |
0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
|
27.58 |
26.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
|
33.28 |
33.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
|
33.41 |
35.02 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
|
30.28 |
25.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohorts 1-3, four years and three years of intervention
;
|
0.04 |
-0.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1-2;
|
-0.08 |
0.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 2 minority Cohort 3;
|
14.64 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3 Cohort 1;
|
19.80 |
22.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-3) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 Cohort 2;
|
83.80 |
90.54 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 2, 3, 4 minority/Cohort 1, four years and three years of intervention ;
|
-0.08 |
-0.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-3) |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 4 lowest 25% Cohort 2;
|
75.86 |
78.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Grade: 3, 4 nonminority/Cohorts 1–2;
|
-0.11 |
0.36 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 36% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 54% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
The study took place in four elementary schools located in the same district in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
This study included students who were enrolled at two SFA® schools and two comparison schools. Comparison schools were matched to the intervention schools based on poverty level, prior achievement level, and ethnicity; pairs of students were then matched on PPVT pretest scores. The study included three cohorts of students, and intervention students in each cohort received SFA® for up to 4 years. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on spring 1995 findings (after 3 or 4 years of exposure) from 205 students in the three analytic samples that were found to be equivalent at baseline: Cohort 1: 54 students in the SFA® group and 20 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1991–92 school year and were followed from kindergarten to third grade; Cohort 2: 45 students in the SFA® group and 32 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1991–92 school year and were followed from first to fourth grade; and Cohort 3: 29 students in the SFA® group and 25 students in the comparison group—these students began using the reading program in the 1992–93 school year and were followed from kindergarten to second grade. The analytic sample for Cohort 3 that the WWC used for the intervention’s effectiveness rating included only ethnic minority students (comprised largely of African-American students). Results for the full sample of Cohort 3 students are not included in this report because the intervention and comparison group students in that sample were not equivalent on key characteristics at baseline. The percentage of Caucasian students in the four study schools was between 40% and 68%. The percentage of African-Americans students ranged from 27% to 45%. The percentage of Hispanic students ranged from 8% to 9%.
Intervention students received the typical SFA® program, including the SFA® reading curriculum, tutoring for students, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers. Students were grouped into cross-grade reading groups based on reading level. These groups met for 90 minutes a day and used the Reading Roots and Reading Wings curricula. Students who were struggling to keep up with their reading group were provided with one-on-one tutoring, and students were regrouped on a regular basis. SFA® was coordinated at the school level by a full- or part-time program coordinator.
Comparison schools continued using their regular curriculum. One school used a reading program based on basal readers, with a strong focus on phonics. The other placed some emphasis on phonics and whole-language instruction, and introduced individual tutoring and regrouping in the later years of the study.
Teachers in their first year of teaching SFA® classes received 3 days of summer training and 2–4 additional in-service days during the school year. A school facilitator monitored and provided feedback throughout the year. Twice a year, trainers provided by the developer visited and observed teachers. After the first year, training was reinforced by regular in-service training, an annual SFA® conference, and implementation checks for the facilitators and trainers.
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.
Casey, J., Smith, L. J., & Ross, S. M. (1994). Final report: 1993–1994 Success for All program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
And Others; Ross, Steven M. (1997). Preventing Early School Failure: Impacts of Success for All on Standardized Test Outcomes, Minority Group Performance, and School Effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, v2 n1 p29-53.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. (1999). Bridging the gap: The effects of the Success for All program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 129–150.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., & Johnson, B. (1993). Final Report: 1992–93 Success for All program in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Casey, J., Johnson, B., & Bond, C. (1994, April). Using “Success For All” to restructure elementary schools: A tale of four cities [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1996). Multi-site comparison of the effects of Success for All on reading achievement [Ft. Wayne, IN]. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 329–353.
Reviewed: August 2009
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 Success for All®.
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