Yu, Lei; Rachor, Robert (2000). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED441831
Reviewed: August 2010
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 Reading Mastery.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Riverside Publishing Off Grade Reading Proficiency Test |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as usual |
spring 1999, end of 5th grade, 2 years of DI |
Grade 4;
|
209.01 |
205.46 |
No |
-- | |
|
State Reading Proficiency Test |
Reading Mastery vs. Business as usual |
spring 1999, end of 6th grade, 2 years of DI |
Grade 5;
|
201.15 |
213.80 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 98% | |
| White | 2% |
The study was conducted in six elementary schools in a northwestern urban public school system
This retrospective quasi-experiment included students in three elementary schools that participated in Reading Mastery for two consecutive years. Each of the three Reading Mastery schools was matched with a school with a similar level of poverty and percentage of minority students. Then, Reading Mastery students were matched with comparison students in the same grade on the basis of race, gender, free lunch status, and reading achievement test scores. This review focuses on findings from students who were in grades 4 and 5 during the first year of program implementation (1997/98). The analysis sample for students who were in grade 4 in 1997/98 consisted of 71 students who received Reading Mastery and 71 matched comparison students. The analysis sample for students who were in grade 5 in 1997/98 consisted of 81 students in the Reading Mastery group and 81 matched comparison students. Of the students, more than 96% were African-American, and about 80% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The study reported students’ outcomes after two years of program implementation; these findings were used in the intervention ratings and can be found in Appendix A3.2. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation can be found in Appendix A4.
The complete Reading Mastery program was adopted, including all materials and teacher training. The program provided scripted, carefully sequenced lessons; rapid pacing; and responses of the students in unison as well as in individual turns. Students were exposed to Reading Mastery over two school years.
The comparison group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum.
For both the pretest and posttest, students took the State Reading Proficiency Test and the Riverside Publishing Off Grade Reading Proficiency Test. The State Reading Proficiency Test provided data at pretest and after two years of intervention implementation for the 5th-grade group and data after one year of intervention implementation for the 4th-grade group. The Riverside Publishing Off Grade Reading Proficiency Test provided data at pretest and after two years of intervention implementation for the 4th-grade group, and data after one year of intervention implementation for the 5th-grade group. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.2.
Teachers participated in training prior to implementation and were provided with ongoing consultations from the provider for the program duration. No additional details about training were provided.
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