Beattie, K. K. (2000). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9983709).
Reviewed: November 2015
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 Successmaker.
Reviewed: August 2010
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 Fast ForWord®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Word Attack |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
86.41 |
85.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Letter-Word Identification |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
90.99 |
92.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock-Johnson Psychol-Educational Battery- Revised (WJ-R) Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Auditory Processing Cluster for Phonemic Awareness subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
82.58 |
85.66 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Third Edition (WRAT-3): Spelling subtest |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
82.58 |
85.66 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Passage Comprehension |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
97.17 |
93.25 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- Third Edition (CELF-3): Receptive Language |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
86.08 |
86.83 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test, Third Edition (GORT-3) |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Ages 12-17;
|
87.39 |
79.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 6% | |
| Black | 19% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 55% |
| Hispanic | 17% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 83% |
The study took place in two middle schools and one middle-high school located in the suburbs of a large metropolitan area in northern Virginia.
Eighty-one 11- to 16-year-old students who scored in the bottom quartile on standardized reading or language tests were randomly assigned by computer-generated procedures to one of four intervention groups or to a control group in a two-step process. The researchers first assigned 18 students to the two intervention groups that received a phase of SuccessMaker and Fast ForWord® and also concomitantly participated in a functional resonance imaging research project. Then, the remaining participants were randomly assigned across the five groups. To ensure an equal distribution among groups, fewer students were placed in the first two groups at the second step of randomization. For this review, the WWC reported results from 12 students in the Fast ForWord® group who were compared to 12 students in the comparison group. Although the overall attrition rate was higher than 20%, the post-attrition intervention and comparison groups were equivalent on the pretest achievement measures.
Students worked on Fast ForWord® for 90–94 minutes a day, five days a week. The intervention ended after each student completed 64–80 hours on the program. The study reported students’ outcomes after two months of program implementation.
The control group received the standard instruction provided as part of the regular school curriculum.
For both pre- and posttests, the author administered the Gray Oral Reading Test, four subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension, and Auditory Processing), the Spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test, and the Receptive Language subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.4.
No information on training for the teachers and staff in this study was provided. To facilitate the use of Fast ForWord®, computers were procured or updated to meet criteria for running Fast ForWord® software.
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.
Given, B. K., Wasserman, J. D., Chari, S. A., Beattie, K., & Eden, G. F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain & Language, 106(2), 83–97.
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