Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2009). Scientific Studies of Reading, v13 n5 p383-425 2009. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ856423
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Benchmarks (uniform) |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
91.13 |
83.28 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fluency |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
91.79 |
87.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Benchmarks (alternate) |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
74.65 |
70.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WRMT-R - Passage Comprehension subtest |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
95.93 |
93.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Comprehension |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
91.64 |
92.21 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Level Skills: Word Reading |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
15 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
97.20 |
98.66 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place in 13 urban, public elementary schools. Though not mentioned explicitly, this study does appear to have been conducted in the United States.
The majority of students in the study were in 2nd grade (65.3%), almost 60% were male (58.9%), 66.3% were minority, 74.3% were eligible for Title 1, 5.9% received special education services, and 28.7% were categorized as English Language Learner. All of the teachers were female, 83% self-reported being White, all had their master's degrees and were K-12 certified. The teacher tutors averaged 14.2 years of experience teaching in the classroom (range = 4-32 years) and had an average of 0.7 years of experience tutoring. The paraeducator tutors, who were recruited from school communities, were mostly female (75%) and White (63%). Paraeducators' education ranged from high school completion to a master's degree and they averaged 1.0 years of tutoring experience.
The intervention is a supplemental tutoring program focused on repeated reading with word-level instruction provided to students in grades 2 and 3 in dyads. The intervention utilized a modified version of the Quick Reads fluency program. Each tutoring session consisted of the following six steps: (1) word reading instruction, (2) first passage reading, (3) second and third passage reading, (4) fourth passage reading, (5) comprehension, (6) read new passage/reread previous passage(s). Students were tutored in their dyads for 30 minutes per day, 4 days per week, for 15 weeks. Tutors were provided with an instructional package, which was recommended in the Quick Reads manual. All instruction that was part of the intervention was scripted as a way to standardize procedures across tutors.
Students assigned to the control condition received regular classroom instruction.
Tutors received a 4-hour training conducted by project staff. The training focused on providing an overview of reading fluency development and the repeated reading method. The use of the Quick Reads materials were modeled and procedures were demonstrated for add instruction/scaffolding in decoding. After the initial training, the project staff visited tutors biweekly to provide follow up training.
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