RMC Research Corporation. (2003). Retrieved from LeapFrog SchoolHouse website: http://www.leapfrogschoolhouse.com/content/research/ RMC_RSLreport.pdf.
Reviewed: October 2008
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 Ready, Set, Leap!®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
5.89 |
5.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
56.73 |
56.59 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
4.24 |
3.18 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
11.03 |
9.58 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Sound Awareness-Rhyming subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
5.49 |
4.92 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
13.59 |
12.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Ready, Set, Leap!® vs. High/Scope |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
23.63 |
24.76 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 44% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 37% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 63% |
The study took place in 17 preschools in Newark, New Jersey.
Seventeen schools were randomly assigned either to an intervention (N = 8) or a comparison (N = 9) group. The study began with 308 inner-city, low-income preschool children enrolled in 34 classrooms in these 17 schools. The researchers excluded seven of the 34 classrooms because they included only children with moderate to severe disabilities. An additional 20 children were lost to attrition, resulting in a final sample of 254 children. The final sample included 129 children in the intervention group and 125 children in the comparison group. At posttest, the mean age of the children in the intervention group was 4.5 years; 57% were female; and 51% were African-American, 42% Hispanic, 5% Caucasian, and 2% Asian or other race/ethnicity. At posttest, the mean age of the children in the comparison group was 4.5 years; 53% were female; and 37% were African-American, 32% Hispanic, 24% Caucasian, and 7% Asian or other race/ethnicity. The difference in the proportion of minority students was statistically significant.
Ready, Set, Leap!® is a prekindergarten curriculum that focuses on developing early reading skills such as phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, and letter-sound correspondence. For the study, the curriculum was integrated into the existing High/Scope framework. According to the developer's website (www.highscope.org), High/Scope is a flexible framework for setting up and managing a preschool classroom. “Active learning” is a central tenet of the approach in which children are encouraged to learn through direct, hands-on experiences. Adults support that learning through scaffolding and interaction, using techniques such as focusing on children’s strengths and problem solving. As in the comparison classrooms, letter names were taught daily. Information on implementation in the intervention classrooms was gathered through several methods, such as classroom observations, and the authors concluded that the curriculum was not fully implemented in all classrooms.
The comparison classrooms also used the High/Scope framework. As in the intervention classrooms, letter names were taught daily. Although classroom observations were collected of the comparison classrooms, no information about the implementation of the High/Scope curriculum in these classrooms was provided.
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and early reading/writing. Oral language was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III). Print knowledge was assessed with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Letter Naming Fluency subtest and the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) Letter-Word Identification subtest. Phonological processing was assessed with the DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency subtest, the WJ III Sound Awareness-Rhyming subtest, and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Blending Words subtest. Early reading/writing was assessed with the WJ III Passage Comprehension subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.1-2.4.
The intervention group teachers received three days of training on the Ready, Set, Leap!® curriculum over the course of the year.
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