
Effects of a Year Long Supplemental Reading Intervention for Students with Reading Difficulties in Fourth Grade
Wanzek, Jeanne; Petscher, Yaacov; Al Otaiba, Stephanie; Rivas, Brenna; Jones, Francesca; Kent, Shawn; Schatschneider, Christopher; Mehta, Paras (2017). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581509
-
examining406Students, grade4
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2017
- IES Performance Measure (findings for IES Funded Studies )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Letter-Word Identification subtest |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
492.79 |
493.23 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
495.47 |
496.31 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
459.25 |
454.23 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
488.12 |
486.98 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Picture Vocabulary |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
491.70 |
490.54 |
No |
-- | |
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Vocabulary subtest |
IES Funded Studies vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
462.08 |
462.04 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
13% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Asian 1% Black 35% Native American 17% Other or unknown 2% White 44% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in sixteen public elementary schools across six school districts in three states. One of the school districts was in a large urban area, one was in a mid-sized city, and four were in rural areas.
Study sample
The sample at randomization was 51% female, 35% African American, 44% Caucasian, 17% American Indian, 1% Asian, and 2% multiracial. Forty-six percent of the students at randomization identified as Hispanic. Eighty-five percent were low income, 13.2% were English Learners, and 15% were identified as having a disability. The study did not provide information about the analytic sample.
Intervention Group
Passport to Literacy, a supplemental reading intervention, was implemented in daily, 30-minute sessions in groups of four to seven students for an entire school year (up to 120 lessons). The intervention is broken into twelve 10-day adventures, with each lesson targeting phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Each lesson begins with a short starter activity followed by two major components: Word Works and Read to Understand. During the Word Works component, students learned strategies related to phonics, word recognition, decoding, sight word reading, and spelling. During the Read to Understand component, students learned new vocabulary and reading comprehension skills. The intervention sessions occurred outside of classroom reading instruction blocks often during the time already designated for intervention/enrichment. For students who were present through the full school year, the number of lessons attended ranged from 58 to 106 lessons. On average each session lasted 28.56 minutes. About 27% of students in the intervention group also received other typical supplemental instruction provided by their schools and available to the comparison group. The other instruction was provided in small groups for some or all of the school year, with an average session being about 28 minutes.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was regular reading instruction in each school. This included core reading instruction, which was on average 75.40 minutes daily), and school-provided supplemental instruction for students who were eligible. This supplemental instruction most often ranged from 31-50 minutes per session, and most were offered in small groups. The average length of intervention instruction time was 28 minutes per session. Sixty-eight comparison students, or about 30% of the comparison group, received supplemental intervention provided by their respective schools for at least part of the school year.
Support for implementation
Prior to the implementation of Passport to Literacy, intervention teachers participated in approximately eight hours of training over 2 days. Training was provided by project coordinators, who also conducted coaching visits twice a month once intervention sessions began. Teachers were able to receive feedback on implementation as well as discuss questions and concerns. Monthly meetings with all intervention teachers were held to provide continued support and ensure implementation fidelity.
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).