No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
For:
-
Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention—Wanzek and Vaughn (2008))
Rating:
-
Meets WWC standards with reservations
because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Word reading outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Woodcock Reading Master Test, Revised - Word Attack
|
Reading intervention—Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
Full sample;
50 students
|
96.28
|
94.97
|
No
|
--
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification
|
Reading intervention—Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) vs.
Business as usual
|
0 Days
|
Full sample;
50 students
|
96.59
|
95.40
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 36%
Male: 64%
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
West
-
Ethnicity
Hispanic |
|
72% |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
28% |
Setting
The students received the intervention in small groups outside of the classroom.
Study sample
Students in the Study 1 sample were 64 percent male, 72 percent Hispanic, 90 percent receiving free or reduced-price lunch, and 32 percent disability identified.
Intervention Group
Treatment students received a single dose of intervention with one 30-minute daily session (Study 1). The following components were included in the intervention:
1. Phonics and word recognition (15 minutes): Instruction included letter names, letter sounds (building from individual letter sounds to letter combinations), reading and spelling regular and irregular words, word family patterns (e.g., fin, tin, bin), and word building (e.g., work, works, worked, working).
2. Fluency (5 minutes): Fluency exercises addressed improving reading speed and accuracy. Activities addressed three skill areas: letter names and sounds, word reading, and passage reading.
3. Passage reading and comprehension (10 minutes): Students read short passages building from three to four words to more than 40 words. Passages incorporated sounds and words previously taught through phonics and word recognition exercises. Comprehension questions integrating literal and inferential thinking followed each passage. Tutors taught strategies for finding answers for or clues to answer the comprehension questions.
4. The tutors were observed weekly and provided feedback during the intervention periods.
Comparison Group
In Study 1, 10 students in the comparison group did not receive any additional reading instruction beyond regular classroom instruction. The other 19 received from 30 to 700 minutes of additional reading services per week.
Support for implementation
All tutors received 15 hours of training during a one-month period prior to the start of the intervention. Training included instructional techniques for the critical components of the intervention (phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Training also covered effective instructional techniques, lesson planning, progress monitoring, and group management techniques. Tutors prepared full sets of lesson plans to be used in simulated practice sessions and received feedback from trainers. Each tutor was observed at least once a week and given feedback on implementation, and participated in weekly meetings.