Schiller, E., Wei, X., Thayer, S., Blackorby, J., Javitz, H., & Williamson, C. (2012). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535544
Reviewed: January 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.17 |
89.06 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.34 |
85.26 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
91.51 |
89.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
85.80 |
84.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
85.88 |
84.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
88.54 |
87.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
85.06 |
84.43 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
89.59 |
89.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Sentence Comprehension Subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.75 |
7.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.17 |
88.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.61 |
11.56 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Sentence Comprehension Subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
6.57 |
5.59 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Sentence Comprehension Subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
8.72 |
8.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
12.42 |
11.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
86.07 |
85.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Sentence Comprehension Subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
7.57 |
7.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
11.35 |
11.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 10;
|
91.58 |
91.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Vocabulary subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
88.57 |
89.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
10.91 |
11.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP): Reading |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.71 |
-0.78 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP): Reading |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 6;
|
697.45 |
692.43 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP): Reading |
Fusion Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 7;
|
796.99 |
799.27 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 81% | |
| White | 10% |
| Hispanic | 7% |
A total of seven schools (4 middle schools and 3 high schools) in southeast and western Michigan participated in the study.
Focusing on the full sample, the Read Fusion group was 54% male, 81% African American, 7% Hispanic/Latino, 10% White, 12% were identified as having a learning disability, and 9% were identified as having any disability. The comparison group was 57% male, 80% African American, 6% Hispanic/Latino, 12% White, 14% were identified as having a learning disability, and 9% were identified as having any disability.
Fusion Reading is a supplemental reading intervention targeted at middle and high school students who score two or more years below grade level on a standardized measure of reading achievement. Fusion Reading builds on the Strategic Instruction Model's Learning Strategies Curriculum and Xtreme Reading. Students receive the intervention for one class period, 5 days a week, for a school year. The curriculum involves nine units and a student project. Fusion Reading is intended to be a 2-year intervention, but because of changes to funding the study only analyzes the effect of Fusion Reading after 1 year of implementation. The Fusion Reading developer intended for teachers to cover at least 80% of the curriculum, and for students to attend at least 80% of the allocated class time. The average curriculum coverage rate was 73% with only 33% of teachers covering the intended amount. The average amount of class time attended by students was 73% with only 57% meeting the 80% target.
Comparison students were assigned to take a non-literacy elective course rather than the Fusion Reading supplemental course. Both intervention and comparison students participated in the normal English Language Arts classes at their school.
The schools hired Fusion Reading teachers based on a description of necessary skills provided by Fusion Reading developers. Teachers received 9 days of professional development and 40 hours of coaching. In the planning year, principals and teachers were given a 2-day orientation to Fusion Reading with print and video materials.
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