Overby, M., & Hobbs, L. J. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.eticonsulting.org/preschool-study.
Reviewed: September 2018
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Composite Score |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
77.76 |
69.74 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Early Literacy Indicators (PELI) Composite Score |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
70.35 |
65.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Identifies Uppercase Letters Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.73 |
16.13 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Word Recognition Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.15 |
1.49 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Phoneme Manipulation Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.99 |
3.55 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Reads Common Signs Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.16 |
1.74 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Brigance Inventory of Eary Development - Recites Alphabet Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.91 |
16.86 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Phonological Awareness Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.20 |
6.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Visual Discrimination Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.15 |
16.26 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Brigance Inventory of Early Development - Auditory Discrimination Subtest |
Utah Preparing Students Today for a Rewarding Tomorrow (UPSTART) Reading Program vs. Other intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.48 |
7.67 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 1% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 0% | |
| Pacific Islander | 1% | |
| White | 95% |
| Hispanic | 5% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 95% |
UPSTART is a home-based, computer-based preschool program for preschoolers and families in rural communities in Utah. The intervention occurs in the home. This study occurred in rural communities in Utah.
The sample was 50% male, over 90% white, and over 80% was at or under 185% of the poverty level. Over 90% of students had parents that were still married. Over 95% of students had parents that had graduated highschool, while 38% of students had parents with a bachelor's degree.
The primary component is the Waterford Early Learning (WEL) software program, an in-home preschool computer-based program that uses software to provide reading, math, and science curriculum with an emphasis on reading instruction. Content is delivered through adaptive lessons, digital books, songs, and activities and is designed to enhance reading skills such as phonics, comprehension, vocabulary, language concepts, and phonological awareness. The recommended use for the program is 20 minutes per day for 5 days per week, though children were required to sue the program at home for 15 minutes per day, 5 days per week. However, not all students received the full dosage for various reasons, so researchers treat the study as 'intent-to-treat' and considers any students receiving any dosage as program participants.
Children in the comparison condition participated in the Waterford Math/Science curriculum. The delivery, format, and requirements of the Math/Science software program were identical between the Reading only intervention group and the Math/Science comparison group. The only difference was the curriculum content.
The UPSTART program had several resources available to parents to assist them, including: access to a manager portal to view children's usage, weekly newsletters about usage, and direct telephone support with Personal Care Representatives (PCRs). PCRs monitored children's usage and reached out to parent's if the usage dropped below the minimum requirement. They also served as a contact for technical difficulties or challenges with the program. District liaisons from UPSTART were assigned for the 18 districts and serve as a bridge for connecting participating families, Waterford, and school districts in order to encourage program use. Technology was provided in some circumstances where families do not possess and cannot afford required technology (e.g. computers, modems, internet).
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Shamir, H., Miner, C., Izzo, A., Feehan, K., Yoder, E., & Pocklington, D. (2018). improving early literacy skills using technology at home. Manuscript submitted for publication. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/325206043_Improving_Early_Literacy_Skills_Using_Technology_at_Home.
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