WWC review of this study

National assessment of Title I interim report—Volume II: Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers.

Torgesen, J., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., et al. (2006). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    104
     Students
    , grades
    3-5
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: January 2013

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

102

96.7

No

 
 
14
More Outcomes

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

92.5

88.4

No

 
 
11

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

92.5

91.4

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

90.9

90.8

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

92.6

92

No

--
More Outcomes

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

89.2

89.9

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency test

SpellRead vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
104 students

103.5

99.9

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 48% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 44%
    Male: 56%
  • Race
    Black
    28%
    White
    72%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania

Setting

The study took place in 32 school units in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU), outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Each school unit consisted of several schools and included two thirdgrade and two fifth-grade instructional groups. Torgesen et al. (2006) does not report an exact number of participating schools.

Study sample

The study design is the random assignment of 32 school units to one of four interventions (SpellRead™, Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading™, and Wilson Reading System®). Within each school, students were randomly assigned either to the treatment group that would receive the intervention assigned to its school or to the comparison group that would receive the standard reading curriculum. This report focuses on schools assigned to SpellRead™ and on findings for fifth graders (as specified by the Adolescent Literacy review protocol). At the time of the analysis, the sample relevant to this review included 104 fifth-grade students (59 in SpellRead™ and 45 in the comparison group) in eight school units. Students were eligible for participation if their teacher identified them as a struggling reader and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. Students scored about one-half to one standard deviation below national norms on baseline measures used to assess their ability to decode words. Among participating intervention group students, 26% had a learning or other disability, 46% were females, and 52% were eligible for free or reduced price lunches. For the comparison group, these proportions were 35%, 42%, and 43%, respectively.

Intervention Group

The intervention was implemented from the first week of November 2003 through the first weeks in May 2004. During this time students received an average of 90 hours of SpellRead™, which was delivered in 50-minute sessions five days a week to groups of three students. The three-student groups were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of each group determined the pace of learning. Many of the sessions took place during the students’ regular classroom reading instruction, but outside their regular classrooms. Implementation fidelity was examined by trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months and by project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions. In addition, ratings of a sample of videotaped sessions were used. Trainers and project coordinators rated implementation as acceptable.

Comparison Group

The comparison group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program).

Outcome descriptions

The study reported student outcomes after six months of program implementation. The primary outcomes in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the WRMT-R, and the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and the Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the TOWRE. The primary outcome in the reading fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary outcomes in the comprehension domain were the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest and the GRADE Passage Comprehension subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes one year after the end of the implementation of the intervention can be found in Appendices D1–D3.

Support for implementation

Professional development on how to use SpellRead™ included training and coaching by SpellRead™ program staff, teachers’ independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences between teachers and SpellRead™ staff. On average, the SpellRead™ group teachers participated in 78.1 professional development hours (30.1 hours for initial training, 24.9 hours for a practice phase, and 23.1 hours for training during the six-month SpellRead™ intervention period).

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

  • Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National assessment of Title I. Final report. Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: September 2010

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

88.7

86.5

No

--
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

97.4

95.5

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

87.3

85.4

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

92.9

92.6

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

93.8

92

No

--
More Outcomes

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

96.3

96

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency test

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Spring 2004

Grade 5;
86 students

96.8

91.9

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 45% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 46%
    Male: 54%
  • Race
    Black
    27%
    White
    73%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    2%
    Not Hispanic
    98%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania

Setting

The analysis sample included seven school units in the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU), outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The AIU consisted of 42 school districts.

Study sample

The study design was based on random assignment of 32 school units, formed from a pool of 52 schools, to one of four interventions (Corrective Reading, Kaplan SpellRead, Failure Free Reading, and Wilson Reading). Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the treatment group that would receive the intervention assigned to its school or to the control group that would receive the standard reading curriculum. This report focuses on schools assigned to Corrective Reading and on findings for 5th graders (as specified by the Adolescent Literacy review protocol). At the time of the analysis, the sample relevant to this review included 86 fifth-grade students (55 in Corrective Reading and 31 in the control group) in seven school units. The number of 5th-grade students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible for participation if their teacher identified them as a struggling reader and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. On average, at baseline, students scored about one-half to one standard deviation below national norms on measures used to assess their ability to decode words. About 51% of the intervention group students were females, compared to 36% in the control group. About 41% of the intervention group students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs, equal to 41% of the students in the control group.

Intervention Group

The decoding component of Corrective Reading was implemented by nine teachers beginning in the first week in November 2003 through the first week in May 2004. The comprehension component was not implemented. The intervention was administered to students in groups of three that were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of the students in each of the instructional groups determined the pace of instruction. Implementation fidelity was determined by reading program trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months, project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions, and ratings based on a sample of videotaped sessions. Implementation was rated as acceptable. The decoding component used in the study included four levels—A, B1, B2, and C. Placement testing was used to start each group at the appropriate level. The lessons provided during the study clustered in levels B1 and B2. For those groups that progressed to level C, explicit vocabulary instruction was not provided. Over a six-month period, students received a total of about 90 hours of instruction. Students received Corrective Reading instruction five days a week in sessions that were approximately 55 minutes long. The study reported student outcomes after six months of program implementation. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes one year after the end of the implementation of the intervention can be found in Appendices A4.1–A4.3.

Comparison Group

The control group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). Across four interventions, the control group students had fewer small-group instructional hours and average weekly hours of total reading instruction than the intervention group students.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) and the Phonetic Decoding Efficiency and Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). The primary measure in the reading fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test (also referred to as AIMSweb). The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the WRMT-R: Comprehension subtest and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.3.

Support for implementation

Professional development on how to use Corrective Reading included training and coaching by Corrective Reading program staff, teachers’ independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences between teachers and Corrective Reading staff. On average, throughout the course of the study, the Corrective Reading intervention group teachers participated in 70.8 professional development hours specifically related to using Corrective Reading (32.8 hours were initial training in use of the program, 26.4 hours were spent in a practice phase, and 11.6 hours occurred during the six-month period in which teachers were using Corrective Reading).

In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.

  • Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., et al. (2007). National assessment of Title I. Final report. Volume II: Closing the reading gap: Findings

Reviewed: July 2010

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2007

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

95.84

88.74

No

 
 
18
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

100.41

93.91

No

 
 
17

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

89.61

87.61

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

92.16

91.46

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

84.58

79.68

No

 
 
13
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

92.54

92.34

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency

SpellRead vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
92 students

65.02

64.02

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 48% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 44%
    Male: 56%
  • Race
    Black
    28%
    White
    72%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania

Setting

Eight school units in Pennsylvania.

Study sample

The study design was based on random assignment of 37 school units to one of four interventions: Corrective Reading, SpellRead™ Failure Free Reading, or Wilson Reading. Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the comparison condition or to the intervention randomly assigned to their school. This report focuses on eight school units assigned to SpellRead™. At the time of analysis, the study included 92 third-grade students (56 in the intervention and 36 in the comparison groups). The number of students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible to participate in the study if they were identified as struggling readers by their teachers and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. Thirty-five percent of students in the intervention groups were African-American and 32% in the comparison groups. The other students were Caucasian. Forty-six percent of students in the intervention groups and 36% in the comparison groups were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Intervention Group

The intervention was implemented from the first week of November 2003 through the first weeks in May 2004. During this time students received, on average, about 90 hours of instruction, which was delivered in 50-minute sessions five days a week to groups of three students. The three-student groups were heterogeneous with regard to students’ basic reading skills. The average skills of each group determined the pace of learning. Many of the sessions took place during the student’s regular classroom reading instruction, but outside their regular classrooms. Therefore, intervention group students received less reading instruction in the classroom than did students in the comparison group. Implementation fidelity was examined by trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over a period of months and by project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions. In addition, ratings of a sample of videotaped sessions were used. Implementation was rated as acceptable.

Comparison Group

The comparison group students received their typical reading instruction, which included the regular classroom curriculum and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). The comparison group students had fewer small-group instructional hours than the intervention group students, but more one-on-one instructional hours.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the word identification and word attack subtests of the WRMT–R and the phonemic decoding efficiency and the sight words efficiency subtests of the TOWRE. The primary measure in the fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the WRMT–R passage comprehension subtest and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) passage comprehension subtest. (See Appendices A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)

Support for implementation

Professional development included training and coaching by reading program staff, independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences. On average, intervention group teachers participated in 63.5 professional development hours across all phases of the study (initial training phase, practice phase, and implementation phase).

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2007

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

103.1

94.3

No

 
 
22
More Outcomes

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

91.97

86.19

No

 
 
15

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

87.19

84.14

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

92.21

89.75

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

89.97

85.78

No

 
 
11
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

93.87

92.87

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency

Wilson Reading System® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
71 students

46.95

41

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 43% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 66%
    Male: 34%
  • Race
    Black
    42%
    White
    58%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2007

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

90.01

87.39

No

--
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

88.01

86.66

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

89.36

89.89

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

87.05

88.36

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

83.71

78.43

No

 
 
14
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

90.38

87.65

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency

Failure Free Reading vs. business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
93 students

56.89

55.03

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 47% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 45%
    Male: 55%
  • Race
    Black
    22%
    White
    78%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania

Setting

Eight school units in Pennsylvania.

Study sample

The study design was based on random assignment of 37 school units to one of four interventions: Corrective Reading, Kaplan SpellRead, Failure Free Reading, or Wilson Reading. Within each school, students were randomly assigned to the intervention or to the comparison condition. This report focuses on eight school units assigned to Failure Free Reading. At the time of analysis, the sample included 93 third-grade students (55 in intervention and 38 in comparison groups). The number of students at baseline was not reported. Students were eligible for participation in the study if they were identified as struggling readers by their teachers and if they scored at or below the 30th percentile on a word-level reading test and at or above the 5th percentile on a vocabulary test. The intervention group had 24% African-American students and the comparison group had 19%. The remaining students were Caucasian. Forty-five percent of the intervention group and 49% of the comparison group students were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Intervention Group

Failure Free Reading was implemented by 10 teachers. According to the study, almost all students in the intervention group received some of the treatment and a very large percentage received 80 or more hours of instruction. The intervention was administered in three ways: large-group reading instruction was delivered by a general education teacher most of the week, pull-out instruction in groups of three students with mixed levels of basic reading skills occurred for about six hours a week, and one-on-one instruction was delivered by a reading specialist for less than one hour a week. Implementation fidelity was analyzed by reading program trainers who observed the teachers and coached them over several months, project coordinators who observed a sample of instructional sessions, and ratings based on a sample of videotaped sessions. Implementation was rated as acceptable.

Comparison Group

The comparison group students received their regular reading instruction, which included typical classroom instruction and, in many cases, other services (such as another pull-out program). The comparison group students had fewer small-group instructional hours than the intervention group students, but more one-on-one instructional hours.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome measures in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised (WRMT–R) and the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and the Sight Words Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). The primary measure in the fluency domain was the Oral Reading Fluency test. The primary measures in the comprehension domain were the Passage Comprehension subtest of WRMT–R and the Passage Comprehension subtest of Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). (See Appendix A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)

Support for implementation

Professional development included training and coaching by reading program staff, independent study of program materials, and telephone conferences. On average, intervention group teachers participated in 70.8 professional development hours across all phases of the study (initial training phase, practice phase, and implementation phase).

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2007

Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

100.34

95.15

No

 
 
13
More Outcomes

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

90.98

86.41

No

 
 
12

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

91.06

87.77

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

89.86

89.48

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

87.39

83.22

No

 
 
11
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

93.16

92.3

No

--
Reading fluency outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Oral Reading Fluency

Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
79 students

66.04

55.33

No

 
 
11

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 45% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 48%
    Male: 52%
  • Race
    Black
    22%
    White
    78%
    • B
    • A
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • I
    • H
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • P
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • V
    • U
    • T
    • W
    • X
    • Z
    • Y
    • a
    • h
    • i
    • b
    • d
    • e
    • f
    • c
    • g
    • j
    • k
    • l
    • m
    • n
    • o
    • p
    • q
    • r
    • s
    • t
    • u
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Pennsylvania
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top