Ransford-Kaldon, C., Ross, C., Lee, C., Sutton Flynt, E., Franceschini, L., & Zoblotsky, T. (2013). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.
Reviewed: February 2024
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
3.04 |
1.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.42 |
4.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
9.32 |
8.85 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
11.21 |
11.53 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
3.80 |
3.13 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 2;
|
22.20 |
22.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Grade: 1;
|
12.53 |
13.41 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 69% | |
| Other or unknown | 31% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 48% | |
| Other or unknown | 52% |
The study took place in 13 urban elementary and K-8 schools in Denver, Colorado.
The study population consisted primarily of minority and economically disadvantaged students. Roughly three out of four (69 percent) study participants were Hispanic, and one-third (34 percent) were classified as English learners. Between 72–97 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in 11 of the 13 schools, and almost half (48 percent) of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in one other school; no data were reported for the remaining school.
For all grades, the intervention included 30-minute, daily, small-group Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) sessions, in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction. Grade 1 and 2 students in the LLI group received, on average, 62 sessions over 18 weeks, with individual students attending between 43 and 75 sessions. Kindergarten students in the LLI group received, on average, 45 sessions over 12 weeks, with individual students attending between 27 and 69 sessions.
The comparison group could receive any other literacy intervention that was available at the participating schools, if their total literacy instructional time did not exceed the amount for intervention group students. The study did not specify the names of these interventions or the number of students who received them, but these interventions could have included LLI.
Literacy teachers in the intervention group received eight days of professional development, access to the LLI online data management system, course materials, and a detailed teaching guide. Additional professional development was provided throughout the implementation year, including training on how to improve reading comprehension using teacher-to-student and student-to-student interactions.
Reviewed: September 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Leveled Literacy Intervention.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.42 |
4.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
STAR Early Literacy test |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: 1, 2;
|
49.21 |
43.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.36 |
11.53 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
4.25 |
3.18 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: K;
|
3.07 |
1.89 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: K;
|
3.92 |
2.86 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
2.71 |
1.95 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: 1;
|
5.87 |
4.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male; Grade: K;
|
2.85 |
2.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K; Hispanic or Latino;
|
3.11 |
2.16 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
5.29 |
4.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K;
|
3.90 |
3.13 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male; Grade: 2;
|
9.80 |
8.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Early Literacy test |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
54.30 |
44.66 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
5.37 |
4.41 |
Yes |
|
||
|
STAR Early Literacy test |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: 1;
|
48.34 |
41.36 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
9.54 |
8.85 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male; Grade: 1;
|
4.97 |
4.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Early Literacy test |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female; Grade: 2;
|
51.08 |
47.49 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
5.55 |
5.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
STAR Early Literacy test |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male; Grade: K;
|
60.02 |
58.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
8.30 |
8.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2;
|
22.43 |
22.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Not Hispanic or Latino;
|
14.03 |
14.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2; Hispanic or Latino;
|
22.47 |
23.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1;
|
12.58 |
13.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1; Hispanic or Latino;
|
11.79 |
13.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) |
Leveled Literacy Intervention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male; Grade: 1;
|
11.90 |
13.87 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 69% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 31% |
The study took place in 13 urban elementary and K-8 schools in Denver, Colorado.
The study population consisted primarily of minority and economically-disadvantaged students. Roughly three out of four (69%) study participants were Hispanic, and one-third (34%) were classified as English learners. Finally, between 72%–97% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in 11 of the 13 schools, and almost half (48%) of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in one other school; no data were reported for the remaining school.
For all grades, the intervention included 30-minute daily small-group LLI sessions in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction. Grade 1 and 2 students in the LLI group received, on average, 62 sessions over 18 weeks, with individual students attending between 43 and 75 sessions. Kindergarten students in the LLI group received, on average, 45 sessions over 12 weeks, with individual students attending between 27 and 69 sessions.
The comparison group could receive any other literacy intervention that was available at the participating schools. The study did not specify the names of these interventions or the number of students that received them.
Literacy teachers in the intervention group received 8 days of professional development, access to the LLI online data management system, course materials, and a detailed teaching guide. Additional professional development was provided throughout the implementation year, including training on how to improve reading comprehension using teacher-to-student and student-to-student interactions.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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