Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2008). Journal of Educational Psychology, v100 n2 p272-290 May 2008. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ796348
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: Alternate Passage (PRF-A) |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
70.02 |
62.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Passage Reading Fluency: Uniform Passage (PRF-U) |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.87 |
79.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test- Rate subtest |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.08 |
86.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Comprehension |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.14 |
92.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
99.92 |
98.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.21 |
94.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in 13 urban, public elementary school presumably in the United States. The intervention, supplemental tutoring, was provided to the students in dyads.
About 68% of the students were in grade 2, 60.5% were male, 69.8% were minority, 22.8% were English-language learners, 17.3% were receiving special education services, and 74.7% received Title 1. Tutors were recruited from the school communities. Of the 22 tutors, 21 had already been working at the school as an instructional assistant or tutor. All tutors had at least a high school diploma and a mean of 3.6 years of tutoring experience.
Quick Reads is a fluency program that includes short, nonfiction passages at various reading levels (grades 1 - 6). Note: while the intervention was designed for grades 1-6, this study evaluates the effectiveness of the intervention in grades 2 and 3 only. For each grade level, there are nine topics that are based on national and state curriculum standards for science and social science. Quick Reads focuses on text features to build fluency and comprehension. Unique words are minimized and 98% of the words used in these texts are high-frequency words. These repeated word exposures were designed to improve sight word learning. The characteristics of these texts help develop underlying lexical accuracy and automaticity skills, which are overlooked in traditional education. Dyads were placed into levels based on the grade level for which their performance on the screening assessments most closely matched. Treatment students received the Quick Reads supplemental tutoring in dyads for 30 min per day, 4 days per week, for 15 weeks. Most of the treatment students (70%) missed some portion of the regular reading instruction to participate in the Quick Reads intervention. An additional 18% of students missed nonreading activities and instruction. The authors created an instructional package for tutors, which is similar to that suggested in the Quick Reads manual. The manual was tailored to address the needs of the delivery of the tutoring (i.e., dyads, as opposed to small group or classroom settings). Each tutoring session had six steps: 1. Letter/sound practice 2. First passage reading 3. Second and third passage reading 4. Fourth passage reading 5. Comprehension 6. Reading of new passage/rereading of previous passage(s)
The comparison group received regular classroom instruction.
The project staff led a 4 hour training session for tutors. The content of training included an overview of reading fluency development and the repeated reading method. Staff modeled the use of Quick Reads materials and demonstrated various procedures, including instruction/scaffolding in decoding. The tutors practiced and were provided with feedback from the research staff. Staff visited with coaches biweekly to provide follow-up training. Additional support was provided to the tutors from the research staff throughout the course of the 15 week intervention.
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