Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508–528. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742197
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): Words spelled |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.00 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.39 |
20.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decodable Reading Passage ("Mac Gets Well") |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.00 |
2.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.72 |
8.55 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phonological Awareness Composite Score |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.00 |
87.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.68 |
5.84 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised-Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Word Attack and Word Identification Subtests |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
TOWRE - Test of Word Reading Efficiency |
Sound Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Students in the study attended urban elementary schools in the U.S. and were determined to be at-risk for reading difficulties.
All students in the sample were in kindergarten. Approximately 58% were male, 86.6% were minority, 32.8% received Title 1 services, 25.4% were ESL, and 13.4% received special education services. Nine elementary schools participated in the study. About 73% of the students in these schools were minority and 59% of students were eligible for free-reduced lunch.
The students in the intervention group received instruction in phonemic and alphabetic skills, which included phonemic decoding skills and assisted oral reading practice using decodable texts. Although the study does not use the name Sound Partners, WWC has determined that this intervention is the same as the Sound Partners tutoring program. The intervention was delivered by paraeducators. Each paraeducator was given a set of 62 scripted lessons (3-4 activities per lesson). Each lesson had matched decodable texts. Each tutoring session was conducted for 30 minutes, 4 days a week for 18 weeks. During the 30 minutes, paraeducators typically spent 20 minutes on phonics activities and 10 minutes on scaffolding. This rate was adjusted to meet the needs of individual students. All tutoring was conducted during the school day on school property. Most students received the tutoring services during circle time, activity center time, or small-group activities (n = 24). The other students received services during classroom reading (n = 7) or math (n = 6). Throughout the duration of the intervention, the researchers interacted with the tutors by providing them with support and additional training as needed. WWC does not consider this to be a confound. The intervention activities included: 1. Letter-sound correspondence; 2. Phoneme segmenting; 3. Word reading and spelling; 4. Irregular word instruction; 5. Phoneme blending; 6. Alphabet naming practice; and 7. Assisted oral reading practice
The students in the comparison group received business-as-usual reading instruction.
The authors conducted a four-hour training session for all paraeducators. During this training, the researchers described each lesson activity and modeled tutor-student behaviors, interactions, errors, and error-correction strategies. Paraeducators were paired and instructed to provide feedback to each other. The authors provided a handbook to paraeducators, which described lesson procedures and reference materials. Throughout the intervention, research staff provided follow-up training and support as needed.
Reviewed: November 2021
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 |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
28.00 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)- Composite score |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Letter Naming Fluency subtest |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.00 |
20.00 |
No |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Master Test, Revised - Passage Comprehension |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.00 |
87.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Word Attack and Word Identification subtests |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Words correct per minute |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.00 |
2.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Average of Test of Word Reading Efficiency Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word Efficiency standard scores |
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 92% | |
| White | 8% |
Nineteen full-day kindergarten teachers in nine elementary schools were asked to identify students who would benefit from intensive additional reading instruction (p.510).
The intervention group included 36 participants (26 males and 10 females), 92 percent were members of racial and/or ethnic minority groups, 33 percent were eligible for Title I services, 25 percent were English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students, and 22 percent were special education students. The comparison group included 31 participants (13 males and 18 females), 81 percent were members of racial and/or ethnic minority groups, 32 percent were eligible for Title I services, 26 percent were ESL students, and 3 percent were special education students.
The intervention focused on supporting students in the development of receptive language, alphabetic knowledge, phonological awareness, reading accuracy, reading efficiency, oral reading fluency, developmental spelling, and reading comprehension. Students received one-on one tutoring 4 days per week, 30 minutes per day, for 18 weeks. A total of 62 scripted lessons were provided to the paraeducators. The mean number of instructional sessions was 55 and the mean number of lessons completed was 47. (Although the lessons were designed to be completed in 30 minutes, the instructors adjusted the pacing of each lesson to accommodate individual students; the instructors’ adjustments account for the disparity between the number of instructional sessions and the number of completed lessons.)
In the comparison condition, students received business-as-usual instruction, which included instruction in reading, primarily emphasizing phonics and structural analysis.
Paraeducators who implemented the instruction received an initial 4-hour training provided by two of the researchers. Trainers described the lessons and modeled paraeducator–student behaviors, interactions, errors, and error-corrections strategies. Trainees then practiced in pairs while the researchers observed and provided feedback. Paraeducators also received a handbook for reference, and were given follow-up training throughout the intervention. Paraeducators with limited experience or low fidelity scores at the outset received additional training from the researchers.
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