Macaruso, Paul; Hook, Pamela E.; McCabe, Robert (2006). Journal of Research in Reading, v29 n2 p162-172. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ733029
Reviewed: June 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 Lexia Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading subtest |
Lexia Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
63.70 |
60.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
First-grade classrooms in a Massachusetts public school district
Study participants were first-graders in 10 classrooms spread across five schools, with two classrooms in each school (one treatment classroom and one comparison classroom) participating in the study.The study initially included 92 intervention and 87 comparison students. Twelve students (9 intervention, 3 comparison) left the study when it was determined that they were eligible for special education services.The analysis sample contained 15 Title I students in each of the intervention and comparison groups (Title I students received an additional 30 minutes of academic instruction per day from a Title I staff member).
Lexia Reading is a computerized, supplementary reading software program designed for regular use, consisting of two to four weekly sessions of 20 to 30 minutes each, in a lab or classroom setting. In the study, intervention students were exposed to two Lexia Reading components: Phonics Based Reading (PBR) and Strategies for Older Students (SOS). The PBR component has 3 levels, 17 skill activities, and 174 units covering basic phonics skills usually taught in grades 1 through 3. After finishing PBR activities, children were introduced to SOS activities, which consist of 5 levels, 24 skill activities, and 369 discrete units. Intervention classes used Lexia Reading software for approximately six months, with children completing an average of 64 sessions and 140 skill units. Most students worked on PBR activities only; 14 students (17%) in the intervention programs moved on to SOS activities, working mainly on early levels.
Students in the comparison group classrooms received regular classroom instruction while intervention group classrooms were participating in the Lexia Reading program.
For both pre- and posttest, the authors used the Gates-MacGintie Reading Test, Level BR to assess reading performance. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure and its subtests, see Appendices A2.1, A2.3, and A2.4.
Teachers in intervention classrooms had an average of 19 years of teaching experience, and teachers in comparison classrooms had an average of 18 years of teaching experience. Teachers in the intervention classrooms and computer lab staff received orientation and training sessions for implementing Lexia Reading software use.
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.
Macaruso, P., Hook, P., & McCabe, R. (2003). The efficacy of Lexia skills-based software for improving reading comprehension. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from Lexia Learning website: http://www.lexialearning.com.au/library/source/research/revere_030912.pdf.
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