WWC review of this study

Empirical evaluation of Read Naturally effects: A randomized control trial (RCT) (Unpublished journal article).

Christ, T. J., & Davie, J. (2009). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    106
     Students
    , grade
    3
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: June 2016

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: July 2013

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

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Full

Grade 3;
106 students

94.9

93.5

No

--
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Full

Grade 3;
105 students

99

98

No

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

Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Comprehension subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
105 students

10

10

No

--
More Outcomes

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

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
105 students

96

97

No

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

Gray Oral Reading Test Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Reading Accuracy subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
105 students

8.5

7.2

Yes

 
 
18
More Outcomes

Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fourth Edition (GORT-4): Fluency subtest

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
105 students

8.5

7.5

Yes

 
 
16

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading (CBM-R) passages

Read Naturally® vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 3;
106 students

76

70

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 23% English language learners

  • 60% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 45%
    Male: 55%
  • Race
    Asian
    6%
    Black
    28%
    White
    42%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    23%
    Not Hispanic
    77%
    • 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

    Midwest

Setting

The study was conducted in six schools in four Midwestern school districts. None of the participating schools had previously used Read Naturally®.

Study sample

Third-grade students in the participating schools were eligible for the study if they were at or below the 40th percentile on a measure of oral reading fluency (DIBELS or AIMSweb) in the fall of third grade, and at or below the 40th percentile on reading comprehension as measured by the Measures of Academic Progress assessment at the end of second grade. After applying these criteria and obtaining consent from the parents of eligible students, 109 students were randomized within their classrooms to either the Read Naturally® group or the comparison group. Demographics for the randomized sample were as follows: 10% received special education, 23% were English language learners, and 60% received free or reduced-price lunch. The racial demographics were: 42% White, 28% African American, 23% Hispanic, 6% Asian, and 1% Native American. The analysis sample included 106 students (53 in the Read Naturally® group and 53 in the comparison group).

Intervention Group

Read Naturally® Software Edition was the version used and involved 10 weeks of instruction beginning in January 2009. Instruction in Read Naturally® was intended to be daily for 30 minutes a session. The time of day designated for Read Naturally® instruction varied across teachers, but was selected so that it would not conflict with existing reading instruction. Instruction groupings for the intervention consisted of no more than six students, with one teacher supervising. Analysis of student intervention usage indicated an average of 20 minutes per session using the Read Naturally® software, as opposed to the targeted 30 minutes per session.

Comparison Group

Comparison group students continued to receive their classroom’s normal reading instruction, with no supplemental fluency instruction. During the class time designated for Read Naturally® instruction, comparison group students engaged in non-reading related activities.

Outcome descriptions

In the alphabetics domain, the authors used the WRMT-R Word Identification subtest and the TOWRE. In the reading fluency domain, three outcome measures were included: the GORT-4 Fluency subtest, the GORT-4 Accuracy subtest, and a CBM-R based on three passages from the DIBELS assessment, selected by the authors. In the comprehension domain, the authors used the GORT-4 Comprehension subtest and the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest. Baseline measures were collected approximately two weeks prior to the beginning of the intervention, and outcomes were collected approximately one week after the conclusion of the intervention. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.

Support for implementation

Each teacher attended a 6-hour Read Naturally® training session, which included lecture sessions and software practice. Intervention integrity checklists, produced by the developer for both students and teachers, were used to assess and evaluate the implementation of the intervention. Bi-monthly classroom observations were also used to assess implementation fidelity.

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.

  • Read Naturally, Inc. (n.d.). Case 2: University of Minnesota study, Minneapolis, Minn. Retrieved from http://www.readnaturally.com

  • Read Naturally, Inc. (n.d.). University study of Read Naturally gets top rating from National Center on Response-to-Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.readnaturally.com

Reviewed: March 2013

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

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.

  • Read Naturally. (n. d.). Case 2: University of Minnesota study, Minneapolis, Minn. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.readnaturally.com/approach/case2.htm.

Reviewed: July 2010

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
 

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