Duff, F. J., Hulme, C., Grainger, K., Hardwick, S. J., Miles, J. N. V., & Snowling, M. J. (2014). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(11), 1234–1243. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1042631
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
YARC Passage Reading Comprehension |
Reading and language intervention for children at risk of dyslexia—Duff et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Students at risk of dyslexia;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Listening Comprehension |
Reading and language intervention for children at risk of dyslexia—Duff et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Students at risk of dyslexia;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Listening Comprehension - aggregate findings |
Reading and language intervention for children at risk of dyslexia—Duff et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Students at risk of dyslexia;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals IV Expressive Vocabulary standardized exam |
Reading and language intervention for children at risk of dyslexia—Duff et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
9 Weeks |
Students as risk of dyslexia;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The location of the study is likely the United Kingdom because the study authors are from the UK and played a role in training the Teaching Assistants. The 61 students who were randomized to the evaluation came from 44 schools: 37 schools had one student, 6 had two, and 1 had seven. Schools were allowed to nominate up to 2 students per randomized student to participate in the intervention. This resulted in 97 additional participants, but their distribution across schools is unknown.
The study provides information on the classification of the at-risk students in the comparison and intervention group (whether they were classified as having a family history of dyslexia or had a preschool learning impairment) at the time of randomization but there is no information on the classification of the students used in the analysis, after some of the initially assigned students withdrew from the study. There is information on the quality of teaching (as measured by observations), which could thought of as a type of teacher training, but this could have been affected by the intervention.
The Reading and Language Intervention (RALI) was developed by the study authors and taught by Teaching Assistants in the schools. The intervention group received 18 total weeks of the intervention, which included daily sessions, alternating between the Reading Strand (20 minute individual sessions) and the Language Component (30 minute small group sessions). The Reading Strand was done three times per week and the Language Strand was done twice. The small groups contained 2-4 students; their mode was 3 students. The Reading Strand was a shortened version of Reading Intervention (Hatcher et al., 2006), which "integrates training phonological awareness and reading." The Language Strand "focused on training vocabulary and narrative skills and was adapted from other interventions (e.g. Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008; Frick et al., 2013) but used storybooks as the foundation for its themes and structure."
The comparison condition received 9 total weeks of the intervention; they started receiving the intervention after the intervention group had already received the intervention for 9 weeks.
Prior to the intervention, Teaching Assistants received 2.5 days of training and scripted lesson plans for the Reading and Language Strands. Teaching Assistants also received email and phone support from the research team every 2 weeks during the first 9 weeks of the intervention and once a month during the last 9 weeks. Every Teaching Assistant was observed during at least one teaching session and provided with constructive feedback.
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.
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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide