Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2011). Scientific Studies of Reading, v15 n6 p471-497 2011. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ945761
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test - Revised (WRAT-R): Spelling Subtest |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2011) vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Students who only spoke English at home;
|
123.41 |
95.91 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Word Attack and Word Identification Subtests |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2011) vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Students who only spoke English at home;
|
110.65 |
104.57 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Word Attack and Word Identification Subtests |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2011) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade 2, Spring: Students who only spoke English at home;
|
107.23 |
102.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Word Attack and Word Identification Subtests |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2011) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Grade 3, Spring: Students who only spoke English at home;
|
106.76 |
102.37 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The original study took place in 11 U. S urban public elementary schools in the Pacific Northwest that were known to have large numbers of students who preformed below proficiency on the state reading tests.
For the randomized sample, intervention characteristics are: 53% male, 0% English Language Learners, 67% free and reduced price lunch, 4% special education, 18% Asian, 59% black, 15% Hispanic, and 15% mixed/other race. For the comparison group in the randomized sample, the characteristics are: 55% male, 0% English Language Learners, 64% free and reduced price lunch, 5% special education, 22% Asian, 35% black, 8% Hispanic, and 4% mixed/other race.
The intervention included a set of 108 scripted lessons involving letter-sound correspondences, phoneme decoding, irregular words, spelling, and oral reading practice. Each one-on-one tutoring session included four to eight short components along with a decodable storybook for oral reading practice. Sessions were 30 minutes long, four days a week, for every week between the fall pretest and spring post-test of the study. Intervention students received an average of 66.3 tutoring sessions and completed an average of 60.03 lessons. Implementation fidelity was reported as a 4.49 average on a five-point scale where five equals always implements correctly and one equals never implements correctly.
Comparison group students did not receive any supplemental tutoring. They received regular classroom instruction. The authors conducted three formal observations of classroom literacy instruction blocks to document typical classroom instruction.
Lessons were scripted and assigned to children based on performance on a master test. Paraeducators had an initial 2 hour training with followup as needed throughout the intervention. Less experienced tutors had an extra 0.5 to 3 hours (M=1 hour) of coaching during the intervention. Researchers conducted 240 fidelity observations with an average of 9.6 per tutor. On a 5 point scale with 5 =always implements correctly, the mean for the 25 tutors was 4.49.
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