O'Connor, R. E. (1999). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14 (4), 203–214. (Study B: Traditional Professional Development).
Reviewed: August 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 Ladders to Literacy.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Segmentation |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
20.63 |
11.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
13.45 |
12.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Rapid letter naming |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
36.67 |
31.51 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Rhyme production |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
5.18 |
4.22 |
No |
-- | |
|
Short term memory |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
9.95 |
9.61 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
100.60 |
100.39 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in a large rural midwestern district.
All the Kindergarten teachers in a district participated and were assigned to an in-service or comparison condition by geographical location, with all eight comparison classes coming from the same school. Students in each classroom were pre-tested and divided by ability level into typical learners and at-risk learners. In the combined analysis sample that included both subgroups, 192 students from nine classrooms were in the treatment group and 126 students from eight classrooms were in the comparison group. The children were predominantly of European-American descent. Class sizes ranged from 18–28 students and all included at least one child with a disability.
In addition to their typical pre-reading instruction, children in nine intervention classes were given more than twenty Ladders to Literacy activities, including sound isolation, first sounds, rhyming pictures, rhyming, onsets and rhymes with first letters, invented spelling, story grammar, and integrating spelling and reading. The district-sponsored pre-reading curriculum included reading and discussing Big Books, learning letters of the alphabet and common sounds, and practicing writing of letters.
Children in eight comparison classes received the same district-sponsored pre-reading curriculum as the intervention group and were introduced to the concept of rhyme. The eight comparison classes formed a Kindergarten center in one school. The teachers of these classes routinely planned their instruction together and shared materials. The students were matched on the Peabody Picture vocabulary Test and demographic variables.
For both pretest and posttest, the author administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test, the test of Short Term Memory, the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement, and the Rhyme Production, Segmenting, Blending, and Rapid Letter Naming tests. The Dictation subtest of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement was also used in the study but is not included because it is outside the scope of this Beginning Reading review. (See Appendices A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Teacher participants included general education Kindergarten teachers, Title I teachers and other supporting staff. In this traditional model of professional development, teacher training totaled three and a half days spaced across the school year. Teachers discussed implementation of activities, solved issues with materials, and shared data on the progress of their students. Training provided teachers with modeling and rehearsal of upcoming activities.
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