Study: 82318

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2021

At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness

At least one statistically significant positive finding

Meets WWC standards with reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

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.

Findings

Measures of general reading proficiency and English Language Arts outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 282 students	2182.60	2150.70	No	--

Passage reading fluency-silent outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency (TOSRE)	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 325 students	92.90	91.20	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 301 students	89.35	87.47	No	--
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 326 students	88.87	88.32	No	--

Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 301 students	96.85	93.61	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 301 students	97.47	94.87	No	--
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 301 students	96.06	94.35	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 301 students	98.00	96.44	Yes	6
Word List Fluency (Vaughn et al., 2010)	Reading intervention (Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2010)) vs. Business as usual	Full sample; 309 students	81.28	77.65	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 52%
Male: 48%
Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas

Race
Asian		1%
Black		46%
Other or unknown		41%
White		12%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		40%
Not Hispanic or Latino		60%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted in two urban southwestern cities. Three participating middles schools came from one large school district, and four middle schools came from two medium-sized school districts. The study authors did not provide further information about the number or type of classrooms involved.

Study sample

All participating 6th-grade students were identified as struggling readers. Eligibility was determined based on performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Students were eligible if they obtained a score less than 2100 or if the lower-bound 95% confidence interval around their score fell below 2100. Students were also eligible if they were exempt from taking the TAKS based on special education status or had very low reading achievement. Students were excluded if they were enrolled in an alternative curriculum, read at or below the 2nd-grade level, were identified as having a significant disability, or were excluded from intervention based on their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Demographic characteristics for the analytic sample were as follows: 52% were female; 79% qualified for free or reduced-price lunch; 46% were African American, 12% White, 1% were Asian, and 40% were Hispanic.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This study was part of a larger intervention research project that involved a professional development intervention for teachers. This study focuses on a Tier 2 level intervention for struggling readers. Eligible students assigned to the intervention condition were provided supplemental instruction in groups of 10 to 15 students by interventionists. Intervention sessions occurred daily for 50 minutes from September through May. The intervention was broken down into three phases of instruction. Phase 1, which lasted 7 to 8 weeks, emphasized oral reading fluency and advanced strategies for decoding words from the Reading Excellence: Word Attack & Rate Development Strategies (REWARDS) Intermediate curriculum (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2005). Phase 2 of the intervention, which lasted 17 to 18 weeks, emphasized vocabulary development and reading comprehension using the REWARDS Plus curriculum (Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2005). Phase 3 of the intervention, which lasted 8 to 10 weeks, emphasized vocabulary development and reading comprehension using researcher-developed materials that focused on applying decoding and comprehension strategies to independent reading.

Comparison Group

Comparison students enrolled in the large school district received daily reading and English/language arts instruction for 90 minutes a day in two schools and 85 minutes every other day in the third school. Students enrolled in the two medium-sized school districts received English language arts instruction for 50 minutes each school day.

Support for implementation

Interventionists were provided with 60 hours of professional development prior to the start of the intervention and an additional 9 hours of professional development over the course of the school year as well as participating in biweekly staff development meetings and receiving regular on-site supervision and coaching. Intervention fidelity was monitored 2 to 3 times a month throughout the school year.

Grant Competition

Review Details

Review Details

Reviewed: September 2016

Does not meet WWC standards

For:

Grant Competition (findings for Teaching Vocabulary and Comprehension)

Using:

Rating:

Does not meet WWC standards because equivalence of the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary and not demonstrated.

Findings

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Response to Intervention for Middle School Students with Reading Difficulties: Effects of a Primary and Secondary Intervention [Reading intervention on word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension vs. business as usual]

Practice Guide

Review Details

Findings

Sample Characteristics

Study Details

Setting

Study sample

Intervention Group

Comparison Group

Support for implementation

Grant Competition

Review Details

Findings

Sample Characteristics