Newman, D. L., Kundert, D. K., Haase, R. F., & Gifford, T. A. (2012). Albany, NY: University at Albany Evaluation Consortium.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading subtest |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State English Language Arts exam scale score, grade 7 |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Total |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
New York State English Language Arts exam performance level, grade 7 |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
New York State English Language Arts exam pass/fail status, grade 7 |
Rewards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 12% | |
| Black | 23% | |
| White | 3% |
| Hispanic | 63% |
The study examines seventh grade students in 11 "culturally and ethnically diverse" middle schools in New York City.
Of the intervention group, students were 53.2% female, 11.5% Asian, 23% Black, 63% Hispanic, 2.5% White, 95.9% general education, 90.9% English proficient, and 94.7% FRPL eligible. Of the comparison group, students were 45.1% female, 12.9% Asian, 20.1% Black, 63.6% Hispanic, 2.7% White, 95.5% general education, 88.3% English proficient, and 94.7% FRPL eligible.
The intervention is a one-year, supplemental literacy program given to students in seventh grade during the 2010-2011 school year. The program is delivered as a class. Classes met five times per week (though not necessarily every day), for 41-46 minutes (43 minutes on average across the 11 schools), for one year. The REWARDS Program provides instruction in word analysis, fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing, and uses content-related text and extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation. Teachers of REWARDS classes were specially trained and assisted throughout the year with classroom and professional development training and support.
Comparison students attended classes in content subjects like science or social studies, talent/enrichment classes like art, music, dance, or drama, or gym class.
School administrators attended classroom and professional development trainings.
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