Bullock, J. C. (2005). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3181085).
Reviewed: June 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 Accelerated Reader.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Reading Test |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 Weeks |
Grade 3;
|
412.40 |
462.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 Weeks |
Grade 3;
|
116.30 |
112.80 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| White | 91% |
| Hispanic | 4% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 96% |
The study was conducted in one elementary school in Lane County, Oregon.
The Accelerated Reader group consisted of 11 female and five male students, while the business-as-usual comparison group consisted of nine female and seven male students. At the time of the study, the participating elementary school had approximately 325 students. The school population was approximately 91% White, 5% other race/ethnicity, and 4% Hispanic. A majority (60.5%) of the overall school population were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Students in the intervention group used Accelerated Reader over a 10-week period. They were provided with a minimum of 90 minutes per week of independent reading during class time and required to visit a library for 30 minutes per week. They also had access to Accelerated Reader books that were within their reading level and took Accelerated Reader quizzes on each book. The Accelerated Reader intervention was used to supplement a standard core reading curriculum; however, the author did not identify which core curriculum was used.
In addition to using the same core reading curriculum as the intervention group, students in the comparison group spent at least 90 minutes a week over a 10-week period reading independently and were required to visit a library for 30 minutes per week. However, they were free to choose any book available in the school library and did not use Accelerated Reader software. Comparison group students were asked to keep track of the books they read.
No information is provided about any special training or support for implementation offered to these teachers. Reading classes for the intervention and comparison groups were taught by the school’s regular teachers.
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 Accelerated Reader.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR test |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 week posttest |
Grade 5;
|
564.00 |
510.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
STAR test |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 week posttest |
Grade 4;
|
472.00 |
473.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
4J Vocabulary |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 week posttest |
Grade 4;
|
63.50 |
64.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 week posttest |
Grade 4;
|
132.70 |
119.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency subtest |
Accelerated Reader vs. Business as usual |
10 week posttest |
Grade 5;
|
135.60 |
134.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 2% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| White | 91% |
| Hispanic | 4% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 96% |
The study took place in one elementary school near Eugene in western Oregon.
The study examined students in grades 3 to 5. For this review, the WWC analysis focused on fourth and fifth graders, as specified in the Adolescent Literacy review protocol. Ninety-one percent of the students in the study school were white, and 61% qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The fourth-grade sample included 45 students from two classrooms, and the fifth-grade sample included 37 students from two classrooms. Within each classroom, students were rank ordered by baseline reading fluency scores and were divided into two groups based on whether their rank was an odd or even number. A coin flip decided the assignment of each group to intervention or control status. There was no attrition of students or classrooms between pretest and posttest.
Students in the intervention group participated in the Accelerated Reader™ program over a 10-week period. These students were provided with a minimum of 90 minutes per week of independent reading time during class and were required to visit the library and check out a minimum of one book a week. Books had to be drawn from the subset of library books for which Accelerated Reader™ quizzes were available. When they finished a book, students completed a brief, computerized, multiple-choice quiz on the book’s content and received points based on the level of the book read and the number of questions answered correctly. During the weekly library visit, intervention teachers and the library specialist verified that intervention students had access to appropriate Accelerated Reader™ books.
The control condition relied on the business-as-usual reading program throughout the 10 week study, without the addition of Accelerated Reader™. As was the case for the intervention group, students in the control group were provided with a minimum of 90 minutes per week of independent reading time during class and 30 minutes per week of library time. Control students were asked to keep track of the books they read.
For both the pre- and posttest, students took the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency subtest; the Standardized Test and Assessment in Reading (STAR); and the 4J Vocabulary assessment. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–A2.2.
The author does not describe the training provided to study teachers.
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