Meisch, A., Hamilton, J., Chen, E., Quintanilla, P., Fong, P., Gray-Adams, K., ...Thornton, N. (2011). Rockville, MD: Westat.
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®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
641.74 |
640.33 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
642.91 |
641.47 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male, 2 years of exposure;
|
622.40 |
617.19 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Hispanic or Latino, 2 years of exposure;
|
630.89 |
625.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
624.44 |
620.85 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
African American, 2 years of exposure;
|
625.28 |
621.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male, 3 years of exposure;
|
641.26 |
638.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
African American, 1 year of exposure;
|
610.26 |
607.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
African American, 3 years of exposure;
|
640.80 |
638.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Hispanic or Latino, 1 year of exposure;
|
615.33 |
612.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male, 2 years of exposure;
|
629.57 |
626.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male, 3 years of exposure;
|
643.75 |
641.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Hispanic or Latino, 2 years of exposure;
|
623.43 |
621.54 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female, 1 year of exposure;
|
614.00 |
612.05 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male, 1 year of exposure;
|
615.91 |
613.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
610.24 |
609.11 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
614.76 |
613.37 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
629.83 |
628.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
African American, 1 year of exposure;
|
615.52 |
614.22 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
African American, 2 years of exposure;
|
631.07 |
629.77 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
African American, 3 years of exposure;
|
641.95 |
640.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Hispanic or Latino, 1 year of exposure;
|
612.64 |
611.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female, 1 year of exposure;
|
613.77 |
612.44 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female, 2 years of exposure;
|
626.81 |
625.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male, 1 year of exposure;
|
607.93 |
606.83 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female, 2 years of exposure;
|
630.63 |
630.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Stanford 10 Vocabulary |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female, 3 years of exposure;
|
642.11 |
641.87 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th Edition (SAT-10) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female, 3 years of exposure;
|
642.36 |
643.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
623.15 |
621.48 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Hispanic or Latino, 2 years of exposure;
|
612.77 |
609.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
African American, 2 years of exposure;
|
611.09 |
608.82 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
African American, 3 years of exposure;
|
623.17 |
620.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Male, 2 years of exposure;
|
607.02 |
604.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Male, 3 years of exposure;
|
619.88 |
617.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
611.23 |
609.12 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
African American, 1 year of exposure;
|
599.35 |
597.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Female, 1 year of exposure;
|
605.11 |
603.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
599.10 |
598.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Female, 3 years of exposure;
|
627.32 |
626.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Hispanic or Latino, 1 year of exposure;
|
599.36 |
599.61 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Female, 2 years of exposure ;
|
616.60 |
616.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stanford 10 Language Arts |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Male, 1 year of exposure;
|
595.12 |
594.96 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 58% |
| Hispanic | 41% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 59% |
The study took place in 20 public middle schools (19 after two schools merged) in Newark, New Jersey.
The schools were selected based on several eligibility criteria: being Title I eligible, not already using READ 180®, serving at least two of the three middle school grades (6, 7, and 8), being categorized as “in need of improvement” under the No Child Left Behind Act, and serving a minimum of 25 eligible students. Schools were grouped into blocks based on the number of eligible students, the number of years the school had been identified as “in need of improvement”, the number of eligible students whose home language was not English, and the number of eligible students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Schools were then randomly assigned within each block to intervention and comparison groups. This cluster randomized controlled trial included 20 schools at randomization in May 2006, 19 after two comparison schools merged. For the outcomes measured in the analysis, the number of students varied, with larger numbers having 1 year of exposure (1,305 intervention, 1,255 comparison), somewhat fewer having 2 years of exposure (814 intervention, 706 comparison), and even fewer with 3 years exposure (552 intervention, 471 comparison). Students were eligible for READ 180® if they scored one standard deviation or more below the norm on the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK) reading subtest. The majority of students were African American (ranging from 51% in Year 5 to 58% in Year 1) and over 40% of students were Hispanic (ranging from 41% in Year 1 to 45% in Year 5). The sample was roughly equally split between students in grades 6, 7, and 8, with a slightly larger proportion of students in grade 6.
Eligible students were assigned to classes of 21 students or fewer. READ 180® was implemented in classrooms as a replacement to the regular curriculum. The instructional model for READ 180® included five parts, totaling 90 minutes, which included whole-group instruction and small-group instruction with equally sized groups. Each 90-minute session included 20 minutes of whole-group instruction, 20 minutes of small-group instruction in reading comprehension strategies, 20 minutes of independent reading, 20 minutes of software use, and 10 minutes of whole-group wrap-up. Instruction lasted 1 to 3 years.
Students in the business-as-usual comparison condition received the regular language arts curriculum.
Professional development was provided to teachers of the READ 180® curriculum and their supporting staff. For teachers, this included 1 to 3 days of large-group training. Classroom support was provided by five Resource Teacher Coordinators (RTCs), who were teacher’s aides. RTCs also attended the teacher training. Technology coordinators for the READ 180® software provided support for technical issues encountered by the teachers. These technology coordinators had half day of training in Years 1 and 2. Finally, principals of READ 180® schools received 2 hours of training in Years 1 and 2.
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.
Carr, M., Daft, J., Ek, P., Falk-Smith, A., Fong, P., Hamilton, J., … Thornton, N. (2010). Striving Readers study: Targeted and whole-school interventions—Year 3. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Hamilton, J., Gray-Adams, K., Meisch, A., & Petta, A. (2009). Striving Readers study: Targeted and whole school interventions—Year 2. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Hamilton, J., Meisch, A., Chen, E., Quintanilla, P., Fong, P., Gray-Adams, K., …Thornton, N. (2011). Striving Readers study: Targeted and whole school interventions—Year 4. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Hamilton, J., Meisch, A., Gray-Adams, K., Petta, I., & Chen, E. (2010). Evaluation of the Striving Readers program in Newark, New Jersey. Rockville, MD: Westat.
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