Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998). 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 Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
12.25 |
10.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.14 |
31.32 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
|
10.11 |
7.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
|
27.10 |
25.73 |
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 |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
16.09 |
15.44 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
|
12.29 |
11.17 |
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 |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
5.35 |
4.74 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (DARD) Oral Reading |
Success for All® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade: 1, Lowest 25%;
|
4.14 |
3.18 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in seven Title I elementary schools in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
This study examined the effects of SFA® in two Title I schools. Five Title I schools that were implementing locally developed schoolwide programs were used as a comparison group. The study was conducted in fall 1996 through spring 1998 and reports on first-grade outcomes of students who were in kindergarten at the start of the study. The analysis sample included 288 students: 83 students in the SFA® schools and 205 students in comparison schools. The student-level analysis sample demonstrated equivalence on the PPVT. School populations ranged between 31% and 50% minority students; between 62% and 81% of students received free or reduced-price lunch. The study also reported on an additional intervention school that supplemented SFA® with another branded intervention (Reading Recovery), but results from this portion of the study are ineligible for review.
Intervention students received the typical SFA® curriculum, including the Reading Roots reading curriculum in grade 1 and the Reading Wings reading curriculum in grade 2, one-to-one tutoring for the lowest-achieving students by certified teacher tutors, quarterly assessments, family support teams for students’ parents, a facilitator who worked with school personnel, and training for all intervention teachers.
The five comparison schools implemented locally developed schoolwide programs. The schools were comparable with SFA® schools on pretest PPVT measures, free or reduced-price lunch status, and ethnicity. Four out of the five local school programs incorporated components of other branded programs, including Reading Recovery, Accelerated Reader, Four-Block, and STAR. These curricula place considerable emphasis on reading, use of basal readers, and multifaceted reading activities.
A full-time facilitator worked with staff to ensure fidelity of implementation in the intervention schools. No information on training for the specific teachers was provided in this study.
Reviewed: October 2012
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