Loadman, W. E., Moore, R. J., Ren, W., Zhu, J., Zhao, J., & Lomax, R. (2011). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Reviewed: December 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
6.19 |
5.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California Achievement Test (CAT): Total Reading |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.70 |
6.44 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 70% | |
| White | 23% |
| Hispanic | 2% |
The study took place in classrooms located in schools within Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) facilities. Seven facilities - six serving males and one serving females - participated in the study.
Sample characteristics are presented for a sample that is larger than the largest analytic sample (1,605 compared to 1,245). The Read 180 intervention sample was 70% African American; 23% White; 4% multiracial; 2% Hispanic; and less than 1% Asian, Native American/Alaskan or missing. The majority (96%) were male and 45% were receiving special education and related services. Fifty-one percent did not have a disability category identified. Students ranged in age from 15 to 25 in 2011, which could have been up to five years after they were assigned to condition. The majority were ages 19 (20%); 20 (19%); and 21 (16%). Students were in grades 8 - 13 in 2011. The majority were in grade 10 (28%) or 9 (26%). The comparison sample was 68% African American; 26% White; 4% multiracial; 2% Hispanic; and less than 1% Native American/Alaskan or missing. The majority (96%) were male and 42% were receiving special education and related services. Fifty-four percent did not have a disability category identified. Students ranged in age from 15 to 25 in 2011, which could have been up to five years after they were assigned to condition. The majority were ages 19 (19%); 20 (22%); 21 (16%). Students were in grades 8 - 13 in 2011. The majority were in grade 9 (28%) or 9 (24%).
Read 180 is a structured reading program. It is delivered in daily 90-minute structured sessions. Read 180 includes five components: whole group, individualized learning, computer activities, small group, and wrap up. Program implementation varied and it was a challenge for teachers to provide the full 90 minutes of Read 180. Read 180 classes have a teacher, an aide, and no more than 15 students. A literacy coach is also available to support teachers.
The comparison condition was the traditional English classes, which include students from multiple grades, with multiple disabilities, and multiple reading levels. For example, the comparison students attended regular classes with students who were not eligible for the study because their initial reading levels were too high. The classes tended to emphasize individual and independent work with minimal group instruction. In the last three years ODYS used American Education Cooperation's (AEC) A+ software for instruction. Students worked independently on computers that gave assignments based on prior work.
Professional development was provided in all five years but the report only indicates hours for Year 1 (4 hours).
Reviewed: November 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
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.
Loadman, W. E., Moore, R. J., Ren, W., Zhu, J., Zhao, J., & Lomax, R. (2010). Striving Readers year 3 project evaluation report: Ohio. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Reviewed: March 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.
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