Pinnell, Gay Su; And Others (1988). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED303790
Reviewed: July 2013
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 Recovery®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Word Recognition subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
May 1985 |
Grade 1;
|
13.68 |
12.51 |
No |
-- | |
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Letter Identification subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
May 1985 |
Grade 1;
|
52.27 |
51.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
Spring 1986 |
Grade 1;
|
36.64 |
26.11 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
Spring 1986 |
Grade 1;
|
36.67 |
28.88 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Dictation subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
May 1985 |
Grade 1;
|
30.62 |
24.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Concepts About Print subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
May 1985 |
Grade 1;
|
15.81 |
14.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Writing Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Skills-oriented drill activities |
May 1985 |
Grade 1;
|
32.86 |
26.05 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 12 urban public schools in Columbus, Ohio.
The study authors used several comparison groups to examine the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery® program. The study comparison that meets WWC evidence standards includes students attending classrooms of teachers who had not previously been trained in Reading Recovery®. Eligible first-grade students were designated as the lowest 20% of readers in their classroom, based on the scores on the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, teacher judgment, and a standardized test. Thirty-eight students were randomly assigned to participate in the Reading Recovery® program, and 37 students were randomly assigned to the comparison group. The analysis sample after sample attrition included 37 students in both the intervention and comparison groups.
Students in the Reading Recovery® group attended regular education classes. Each student also participated in individualized instruction with a Reading Recovery® teacher for 30 minutes daily until the student reached average levels for the class (on average, students who reached average levels received 67 daily lessons).
Students in the comparison group attended regular education classes. They also attended an alternative compensatory program focused on a series of skills-oriented drill activities. This program included primarily small group instruction (with minimal individual-level instruction) and was delivered by trained paraprofessionals for approximately 30–45 minutes per day.
Researchers reported outcomes from nine literacy measures, seven of which were included in the WWC review and ratings of effectiveness. Five of the six reported subtests of the Observation Survey5 were included in the WWC review of this study: two in the alphabetics domain, including Letter Identification and Word Recognition; and three in the general reading achievement domain, including Concepts About Print, Dictation, and Writing Vocabulary. Results from the Observation Survey: Text Reading Level subtest were not reported in this review because the WWC determined that it was not possible to calculate effect sizes that were comparable to other measures. The study authors also reported two outcome measures that fall into the comprehension domain: the Reading Vocabulary subtest and the Reading Comprehension subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). Finally, the study included a writing assessment that does not fall within one of the domains specified in the WWC Beginning Reading protocol. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Reading Recovery® teachers received a full year of special training, during which they practiced teaching using Reading Recovery® methods and observed other teachers through a one-way mirror. The 20 teachers who provided the Reading Recovery® intervention to the analysis sample included in this WWC review received training from a local teacher leader and were in their first year of teaching the intervention during the time of the study.
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.
Pinnell, G. S. (1988). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading (Technical Report No. 417). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989a). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989b). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), Reading and writing connections (pp. 237–259). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pinnell, G. S., Short, K. G., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus, OH Year 1: 1985–1986. Columbus: Ohio State University.
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