Barker, T., & Torgesen, J. K. (1995). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(1), 89–103.
Reviewed: June 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 Phonological Awareness Training.
Reviewed: September 2006
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 DaisyQuest.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Production Test of Segmenting |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
7.51 |
3.27 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Undersea Challenge |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
10.49 |
9.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Production Test of Segmenting |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
7.51 |
3.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Undersea Challenge |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
10.49 |
9.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phoneme Elision Task |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
4.38 |
2.41 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Analysis subtest |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
2.92 |
1.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme Elision Task |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
4.38 |
2.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sound categorization |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
9.14 |
6.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Identification subtest |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
16.35 |
11.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Identification subtest |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
16.35 |
12.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
Experimental Non-Word Reading |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
21.84 |
18.73 |
No |
-- | |
|
Production Test of Blending |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
7.30 |
5.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Analysis subtest |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
2.92 |
2.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Experimental Non-Word Reading |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
21.84 |
19.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Production Test of Blending |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
7.30 |
6.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sound categorization |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
9.14 |
8.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analog Reading Task |
DaisyQuest vs. Hint and Hunt software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
12.23 |
12.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Analog Reading Task |
DaisyQuest vs. Math software |
Posttest |
At-risk first graders;
|
12.23 |
12.56 |
No |
-- |
This study took place at two elementary schools.
Participants were the 54 students who met eligibility criteria (scoring below the 40th percentile on the Woodcock-Johnson Word Identification subtest) and the sound categorization measure (below 50th percentile). Initially, 87 at-risk first graders (approximately 6–7 years old) were nominated by their teachers and screened for study eligibility. The 54 qualifying students were given additional pretests and then randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison group. Due to attrition, 49 students were in the final analysis sample.
Intervention students used the DaisyQuest software in a school psychologist’s office in groups of three or four students under the direction of an experimenter. Students wore headphones and used the software independently during intervention sessions that lasted 25 minutes four times a week for eight weeks. Students used both components of the DaisyQuest program. This version of DaisyQuest contained seven instructional activities.
Two comparison groups were used. Both sets of students used computers for the same amount of time as the intervention group for either an alphabetic decoding program that focused on vowel sounds (Hint and Hunt) or computer-based math programs (including Alien Addition, Math Rabbit, and Math Blaster).
The authors used a battery of tests for pre- and posttests. The Woodcock-Johnson Reading Mastery Word Identification subtest and a sound categorization measure were used as screening measures for eligibility at pretest and as posttests. Students assigned to the study were given an additional seven tests as pre- and posttests: Undersea Challenge, the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Mastery Word Analysis subtest, a phoneme elision task, a production test of segmenting, a production test of blending, experimental nonword reading, and an analog reading task. The vocabulary measure from the Stanford Binet IV-Revised test was also mentioned by authors, but results for this measure were not presented. (See Appendix A2 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
No information was given about teacher training, because teachers did not deliver instruction for any of the groups.
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