Swanson, H. Lee; O'Connor, Rollanda (2009). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v42 n6 p548-575 2009. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ861278
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GORT-4 Fluency subtest |
Continuous reading practice—Swanson and O'Connor (2009) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2: Continuous Reading vs. Comparison;
|
38.29 |
37.62 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GORT-4 Comprehension subtest |
Continuous reading practice—Swanson and O'Connor (2009) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2: Continuous Reading vs. Comparison;
|
14.57 |
13.96 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Normative Update, Word Attack subtest |
Continuous reading practice—Swanson and O'Connor (2009) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2: Continuous Reading vs. Comparison;
|
18.32 |
14.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised Normative Update, Word Identification subtest |
Continuous reading practice—Swanson and O'Connor (2009) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2: Continuous Reading vs. Comparison;
|
47.69 |
44.18 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in classrooms in 6 elementary schools in Southern California.
The study did not present sample characteristics for only the second grade students.
The study tests a continuous reading intervention. Students read text aloud to adult listeners continuously for 15 minutes. No passages of text were repeated; the adult listeners corrected errors by giving missed words but did not teach decoding or vocabulary. The intervention involved 15-minute sessions 3 times a week for 20 weeks.
Teachers taught their regular lessons using the Houghton Mifflin curriculum.
There were nine total adult listeners used for the study (five graduate student researchers and four additional hired listeners). These tutors (adult listeners) were trained during a 2-hour session by the principal investigator. The tutors were also observed during the first two treatment days and were given feedback. They were also observed on a weekly basis during the entire study (95 total observations). The tutors kept logs on the students reading.
Reviewed: May 2014
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 Repeated Reading.
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