Schwartz, Robert M. (2005). Journal of Educational Psychology, v97 n2 p257-267. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ688444
Reviewed: June 2016
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.
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. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
14.96 |
8.87 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
17.70 |
15.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Deletion task |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
6.64 |
5.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Letter Identification subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
52.18 |
51.68 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
4.82 |
4.27 |
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. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
35.58 |
29.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Concepts About Print subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
19.24 |
16.68 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Writing Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
42.67 |
31.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Text Reading subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
0.78 |
0.05 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| More Outcomes | |||||||||
|
Slosson Oral Reading Test– Revised |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
Mid-Year |
Grade 1;
|
30.58 |
18.12 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 40% | |
| White | 46% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study took place in an unspecified number of elementary schools in 14 states.
The study was designed to examine the effect of Reading Recovery® on the outcomes of firstgrade students. Forty-seven Reading Recovery® teachers each identified two students7 eligible for Reading Recovery® based on their low scores on the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement and their own judgment. These 94 students were randomly assigned to enter the Reading Recovery® program during either the first or second half of the school year. [Note: The study also included two additional comparison groups of 47 low-average and 47 high-average readers from the same classrooms as the Reading Recovery® students who were not expected to participate in the Reading Recovery® program. Analysis involving these comparison groups was not eligible for WWC review because the WWC considers only comparisons of students with similar achievement backgrounds in assessing the effectiveness of an intervention.] Because of missing test data, the author’s final analytic sample included 74 students distributed across 37 teachers.
Students participated in the one-on-one daily 30-minute tutoring program for up to 20 weeks or until they were judged by their teacher to have met the criteria for termination of the program by reaching average levels of literacy performance. The length of program participation ranged from 12 to 20 weeks. Originally, participants were taught by 47 Reading Recovery® teachers who had volunteered to be part of the study, but because of missing test data, data from only 37 teachers and 37 students were included in the author’s final analysis. The intervention group was 61% male, 47% Black, 38% White, 12% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. About 60% of the group received free or reduced-price lunch.
The comparison group included students who were randomly assigned to receive Reading Recovery® during the second half of the year. Thus, these participants served as a comparison group only during the first part of the year when they received instruction in their regular classroom but no additional supplemental services. The final analysis included data from 37 teachers and 37 students. The comparison group was 41% male, 47% White, 38% Black, and 15% Hispanic. Approximately 57% of the group received free or reduced-price lunch.
The study author reported outcomes on ten literacy measures, all of which were included in the WWC review and ratings of effectiveness. Six reported subtests of the Observation Survey were included in the WWC review of this study: two in the alphabetics domain, including Letter Identification and Word Recognition; one in the fluency domain (Text Reading Level); and three in the general reading achievement domain, including Concepts About Print, Dictation, and Writing Vocabulary. The study author also reported two additional outcome measures that fall into the alphabetics domain, Phoneme Segmentation and Deletion task, one additional outcome in the fluency domain, Slosson Oral Reading Test–Revised, and one outcome in the comprehension domain, Degrees of Reading Power. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Although the study provided no information about training provided to participating teachers, Reading Recovery® teachers typically must complete a year-long certification program.
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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide