WWC review of this study

Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention system (LLI).

Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E. S., Ross, C. L., Franceschini, L., Zoblotsky, T., Huang, Y., & Gallagher, B. (2010). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544374

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    427
     Students
    , grades
    K-2

Reviewed: September 2017

At least one finding shows strong evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
Evidence
tier

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (aggregated, grades K-2);
422 students

0.22

0.19

No

--
More Outcomes

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (aggregated, grades K-1);
271 students

0.34

0.31

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (aggregated, grades K-1);
271 students

0.39

0.37

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (grade K);
111 students

0.23

0.22

No

--
Show Supplemental Findings

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Black;
51 students

0.10

0.07

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
56 students

0.21

0.17

Yes

 
 
18

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K;
141 students

0.10

0.07

Yes

 
 
15

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1;
130 students

0.21

0.17

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; White;
37 students

0.49

0.42

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1;
130 students

0.48

0.42

Yes

 
 
13

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1;
130 students

0.43

0.39

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; White;
40 students

0.10

0.08

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Words Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 2; White;
42 students

0.33

0.30

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; White;
40 students

0.33

0.31

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
56 students

0.42

0.40

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Initial Sound Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Black;
45 students

0.22

0.21

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K;
141 students

0.33

0.32

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Black;
51 students

0.32

0.31

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K;
141 students

0.26

0.24

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
56 students

0.39

0.38

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; White;
40 students

0.24

0.24

No

--

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Black;
51 students

0.18

0.22

No

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

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (aggregated, grades K-2);
427 students

6.08

4.67

Yes

 
 
14
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Hispanic or Latino;
50 students

1.89

0.83

Yes

 
 
36

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 2; White;
42 students

11.43

9.52

Yes

 
 
30

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K;
146 students

1.82

1.04

Yes

 
 
29

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; Black;
53 students

1.73

1.08

Yes

 
 
29

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1;
130 students

5.78

3.95

Yes

 
 
28

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
56 students

5.29

3.68

Yes

 
 
26

Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: K; White;
41 students

1.78

1.29

No

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

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Full sample (aggregated, grades 1-2);
281 students

0.19

0.16

Yes

 
 
11
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1;
130 students

0.15

0.11

Yes

 
 
15

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
56 students

0.12

0.11

No

--

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual

0 Days

Grade: 2; White;
42 students

0.24

0.23

No

--


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 13% English language learners

  • Rural, Suburban
    • 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

    Georgia, New York
  • Race
    Black
    33%
    Other or unknown
    38%
    White
    29%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    37%
    Not Hispanic or Latino    
    63%

Setting

The study took place in five rural elementary schools in Tifton, Georgia and four suburban elementary schools in Middletown, New York.

Study sample

The study participants, who were in grades K–2, were predominantly economically disadvantaged, with 84% being eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. The study included predominantly minority students; 37% were Hispanic, 33% were African American, and 29% were White. Approximately 13% of students were classified as English learners.

Intervention Group

For all grades, the intervention included 30-minute daily small-group LLI sessions in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction. Grade 1 and 2 students in the LLI group received, on average, 72.9 sessions, with individual students attending between 40 and 90 sessions. Kindergarten students in the LLI group received on average 37.5 sessions, with individual students attending between 27 and 46 sessions.

Comparison Group

The comparison group received regular classroom literacy instruction but no additional supplemental instruction. The study did not specify the names of the curricula used.

Support for implementation

Intervention teachers received 8 days of professional development using the LLI materials and instructional techniques, and training on the online data management system for LLI. The authors note that professional development support continued during the study period.

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.

  • Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E. S., & Ross, C. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of a response-to-intervention (RTI) Tier 2 literacy program: Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI). Washington, DC: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

Reviewed: April 2014

Meets WWC standards without reservations


Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 100% English language learners

  • Rural, Urban
  • Race
    Black
    34%
    White
    29%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic    
    37%
 

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