Nelson, J. R., Stage, S. A., Epstein, M. H., & Pierce, C. D. (2005). Exceptional Children, 72(1), 29-45. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ754702
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
42.41 |
22.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness |
Stepping Stone to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.84 |
90.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
Students were drawn from 27 kindergarten classrooms in 10 elementary schools in the Midwest of the United States.
None specified.
Stepping Stones to Literacy is designed as a supplement to core literacy instruction. Lessons are delivered in a one-to-one scripted format by paraprofessional staff during times that were deemed by teachers to be least disruptive to a given student's educational program. Each daily lesson included 10 to 20 minutes of instruction, during which time children were guided through a set of activities designed to promote six prereading skills: (1) identification, manipulation, and memory of environmental sounds [i.e., parallel phonemic awareness tasks], (2) letter names, (3) sentence meanings [i.e., sentence recognition, sentence generation], (4) phonological awareness [i.e., rhyme identification, rhyme generation, word segmentation, syllable blending, and onset-time blending], (5) phonemic awareness [i.e., phoneme deletion, phoneme identification, phoneme segmentation, phoneme change], and (6) serial processing [i.e., rapid automatic naming].
Children in the control group received the core kindergarten literacy instruction offered in the classroom. Teachers in participating schools did not use a formal basal series to guide literacy instruction. Literacy instruction focused on (1) instructional activities centered on concepts of print (e.g., parts of books and their function, predictions based on illustrations or stories, connection of events in text and life, letter names) and (2) instructional activities focused on preparing students to word read (e.g., phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondence, sight words, writing letters). Teachers also had access to the phonics supplement of the Open Court reading program.
Tutor training included presentation of the theory/rationale for Stepping Stones; description and modeling of instructional activities; tutor practice of instructional activities with one another; and tutor presentation of three complete, randomly selected lessons. Teachers were required to implement at least 90% of the intervention's lesson components prior to tutoring children. Following training, tutors were observed and received corrective feedback during the first five lessons.
Reviewed: June 2007
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 Stepping Stones to Literacy.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
37.70 |
22.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
104.80 |
94.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
105.30 |
96.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest |
Stepping Stones to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
96.10 |
90.40 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 14% | |
| White | 75% |
| Hispanic | 10% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 90% |
The participating students attended 10 elementary schools in the Midwest.
Participants were 84 kindergarten students (64 in the intervention group and 20 in the comparison group) from 27 classrooms. Students were randomly assigned to conditions. All students had behavior problems, which were identified based on high scores on a measure developed by Walker, Severson, & Gates (1995; as cited in Nelson, Stage, Epstein, & Pierce, 2005) to indicate risk for behavioral disorders. The second criterion for participating in the study was a low score on the DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency subtest. The analysis sample included 47 students in the intervention group and 16 students in the comparison group. For the analysis sample, the study reported that 75% of the participants were male students, and about 26% were ethnic minority students. In addition, about 44% of the sample qualified for the free/reduced lunch program.
The intervention was implemented during tutoring sessions, which were a supplement to the regular curriculum used at the schools. According to reports by tutors and independent observers, the tutoring sessions were implemented with a high level of fidelity.
No information was provided for the comparison group other than that this group did not receive SSL services. The study indicated that no attempt was made to change any of the teachers’ regular instructional practices in the classroom.
Primary outcome measures included the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness subtest, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills: Letter Naming Fluency subtest, and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised: Word Identification and Word Attack subtests (see Appendix A2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Information on training of tutors was not reported in the study.
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