Case, L., Speece, D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Montanaro, E., & Ritchey, K. (2014). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 28-53. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1030356
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 1 Level |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
90.21 |
82.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Passage Reading Fluency - Grade 2 Level |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.46 |
87.39 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.07 |
104.72 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
105.93 |
104.57 |
No |
-- | |
|
TOWRE - Phonemic Decoding Fluency |
Small group reading intervention for at-risk children in first grade—Case et al. (2010) vs. Peer assisted learning (PAL) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.59 |
97.08 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study participants were first-grade students from parochial schools in a major mid-Atlantic city and nearby suburban communities.
The school enrollment ranged from 166 to 715 students (Median = 483 students) in the participating schools. The median percentage of children eligible for free and reduced-priced meals at the school level was 5% (range = 0–75%). In the analysis sample, 54.1% were boys in the intervention group (54% in the comparison group); 14.8% were black in the intervention group (8.1% in the comparison group); 39.9% of the intervention students' mothers had a high school degree, (45.2% in the comparison group).
The intervention period occurred from January through March. The intervention consisted of three 40-min sessions scheduled weekly, for approximately 12 weeks. The intervention was administered in groups and group size varied from two to four students per group. There were 22 groups in total and there were seven groups of two students, 13 groups of three students, and two groups of four students. The intervention used methods recommended by the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Twenty five scripted lessons were developed from other reading programs and evidence-based instructional methods. Tutors followed the scripted lessons closely but were allowed to modify lessons slightly, when necessary, when students were struggling. Each lesson included three main components. First, there was 15 minutes of instruction on "building phonemic awareness and phonic skills through the introduction and reinforcement of letter-sound relationships." Then tutors provided 10 minutes of instruction "focusing on sight works, decodable works, vocabulary, and prereading comprehension strategies." Finally, in the last 15 minutes, students "participated in reading fluency and comprehension activities with timed reading, repeated choral reading, and discussion to build comprehension." Every fourth lesson the format changed where "instead of participating in choral and timed reading, students listened to one student read a decodable or leveled trade book and then the group read the text chorally."
Students from the comparison group received Tier 1 instruction, which consisted of Peer Assisted Learning Strategies three times a week between November and April during first grade.
Intervention tutors participated in a minimum of 20 hours of training. All participating teachers were provided with Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) training. Project staff observed teachers twice per year and obtained fidelity information to document PALS implementation. The authors also established treatment fidelity in several ways.
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