Roberts, G.., Rane, S., Fall, A., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2015). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 942–953.
Reviewed: November 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
502.30 |
501.38 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III): Passage Comprehension subtest |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
495.55 |
496.35 |
No |
-- |
|
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 (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
509.60 |
508.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behavior Scale (SWAN): Attention Deficit |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
32.16 |
30.99 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 58% | |
| Other or unknown | 32% | |
| White | 9% |
| Hispanic | 32% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 68% |
The study was conducted in 7 middle schools in two large urban cities in the southwestern United States (likely Texas). One district was large and contributed 3 schools; the other district was medium-sized and contributed 4 schools. Each school contained about 600 to 1,300 students.
Of the 768 students at randomization (510 intervention plus 258 comparison), 54% were male, 58% were African American, 9% were White, and 1% were Asian. A total of 32% identified as Hispanic, 18% were limited English proficient, and 85% received free or reduced-price lunch.
The intervention was a supplemental reading program implemented in tiers across the 3 years of the study. Tier I was the core reading instruction received by all students (intervention and comparison) across all years of the study. During Year 1 of the study, all students in the intervention group received the supplemental reading intervention referred to as Tier II. The Tier II intervention was provided in daily 50-minute sessions throughout the school year. Instructors of the Tier II intervention sequentially implemented a three-phase protocol. Phase I focused on word study and fluency, Phase II focused on vocabulary and comprehension, and Phase III focused on how to apply word-level and comprehension practices to assigned reading texts. During Year 2 of the study, students of the intervention group who did not pass the TAKS at the end of Year 1 were randomly assigned to a standardized or individual Tier III level of the supplemental reading intervention. Students receiving the standardized intervention received instruction in groups of five students. In Year 3, students that received the Tier III intervention in Year 2, and did not pass the TAKS at the end of that year, were included in the intervention group during Year 3. These students received the Tier IV level of the supplemental reading intervention, which consisted of instruction in groups of two to four students as well as individualized instructional programs for each student.
The comparison condition across all 3 years of the study was the usual reading instruction provided to at-risk readers (i.e. "business-as-usual"). In the larger of the two school districts, this consisted of an 85-minute English language arts class which all students attended (including those in the intervention group), and a 45-minute supplemental reading class for struggling readers (not to be confused with in the intervention). Note that students of the intervention group received both the 45-minute supplemental reading class provided by the district and the intervention. Intervention and comparison students in the smaller school district attended a 50-minute English language arts class daily. The smaller district did not offer additional reading classes for struggling readers. As such, the intervention students in the larger district received two supplemental daily reading classes while the intervention students in the smaller district received one daily reading class.
The research team provided intervention teachers with approximately 60 hours of professional development in of each the 3 years prior to implementation. Teachers also participated in biweekly staff development meetings and received regular on-site feedback and coaching.
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