Pinnell, Gay Su; And Others (1994). Reading Research Quarterly, v29 n1 p8-39. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475731
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: Dictation subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
February posttest |
Grade 1;
|
31.74 |
26.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
February posttest |
Grade 1;
|
36.19 |
31.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R) |
Reading Recovery® vs. business as usual |
February posttest |
Grade 1;
|
39.81 |
39.49 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 0% | |
| Black | 21% | |
| White | 61% |
The study took place in ten school districts (two rural, two suburban, and six urban) in Ohio.
The authors studied 403 first-grade students distributed across 43 schools from ten districts. The percentage of students in each district who received public assistance in the form of Aid to Dependent Children ranged from 9% and 42%. Four schools per district implemented one of four reading interventions—Reading Recovery®, Reading Success, Direct Instruction Skills Plan, and Reading and Writing Group. Within each school, the ten lowest-scoring students were randomly assigned either to participate in the intervention or to participate in the school’s regular reading program. For this report, the WWC looked at results for students in the ten schools (across ten school districts) who were using Reading Recovery® as their intervention. These schools all had prior experience implementing Reading Recovery®. In the original study design, 100 students were randomly assigned to receive either Reading Recovery® or the comparison condition at ten schools. However, random assignment was not successfully implemented at two schools, and there was minor attrition at the remaining schools, resulting in a final analytic sample of 79 students from eight schools (in eight districts). All students were low achieving, which was defined as students who scored below the 37th percentile on a standardized assessment and who were recommended for compensatory help by their teachers.
The intervention group was composed of 31 low-achieving students across eight schools. Intervention students received one-on-one tutoring with a trained Reading Recovery® teacher daily for 30 minutes. The activities led by the teacher were aimed at fostering independent reading skills and included: reading both easier and more challenging books, conducting word analysis in context, and participating in activities aimed at improving writing fluency, such as composing sentences and reconstructing cut-up versions of sentences.
The comparison group included 48 students attending the same eight schools as the intervention group. Students assigned to the comparison group received no special instruction, but continued to participate in their regular reading program and existing federally-funded supplemental education services with an instructional focus on developing basic reading and vocabulary skills. Some lessons from the supplemental education program included teachers reading aloud as well as group reading. Comparison group teachers, none of whom had received Reading Recovery® training, selected instructional materials based on their own discretion.
This WWC review focuses on outcomes measured in February of the academic year in which the study took place because, at that point, no comparison group students had been exposed to the intervention. The WWC review does not include assessments that were measured in May of the same academic year because, at that time, a portion of students who had originally been assigned to the comparison condition had participated in the intervention. Three measures were administered to assess student outcomes in the general reading achievement domain: the Dictation subtest of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised, and the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Results from the Observation Survey: Text Reading Level subtest were not reported because effect sizes that were comparable to other measures could not be calculated. For a more detailed description of the included outcome measures, see Appendix B.
At least two years prior to the study, Reading Recovery® teachers received specialized training. During this training period that took place over the course of an academic year, the teachers participated in weekly 2.5 hour long sessions, in which they practiced teaching using Reading Recovery® methods and observed other teachers through a one-way mirror. They also received a 1-day orientation at the beginning of the study.
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