Smith, Jean Louise M.; Nelson, Nancy J.; Fien, Hank; Smolkowski, Keith; Kosty, Derek; Baker, Scott K. (2016). Elementary School Journal, v116 n4 p549-573 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103958
Reviewed: April 2023
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.
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.
Fien, Hank; Smith, Jean L. M.; Smolkowski, Keith; Baker, Scott K.; Nelson, Nancy J.; Chaparro, Erin. (2015). An Examination of the Efficacy of a Multitiered Intervention on Early Reading Outcomes for First Grade Students at-Risk for Reading Difficulties.
Fien, Hank; Nelson, Nancy J.; Smolkowski, Keith; Kosty, Derek; Pilger, Marissa; Baker, Scott King; Smith, Jean Louise Mercier. (2021). A Conceptual Replication Study of the Enhanced Core Reading Instruction MTSS-Reading Model. Exceptional Children, v87 n3 p265-288.
Reviewed: March 2019
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 Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
21.72 |
19.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification subtest |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
45.44 |
43.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) - Words Recoded Completely (WRC) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
21.84 |
19.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) - Words Recoded Completely (WRC) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
16.27 |
13.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT-10: Total Reading |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
550.52 |
544.40 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
SAT-10: Word Reading |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
541.46 |
530.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
SAT-10: Sentence Reading |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
560.78 |
553.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
56.39 |
53.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) |
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI) vs. Business as usual |
4 Months |
Full sample;
|
30.02 |
25.80 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 4% | |
| Other or unknown | 96% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study was conducted in two waves. In the first wave, 18 schools in three Oregon school districts were recruited to participate and were randomly assigned. In the second wave (the next school year), 20 schools in three Oregon districts and 8 schools in three Massachusetts districts participated, all of which were randomly assigned. The combined sample thus included 46 schools that were randomly assigned. Of these, 44 schools participated in the study and were included in the analytic sample. The study was conducted in 1st grade classrooms in these schools (pp. 553-554).
Of the 811 students in the analytic sample, 3.6 percent (4.3 percent intervention, 3.0 percent comparison) were African American and 18.9 percent (19.8 percent intervention, 18.0 percent comparison) were Hispanic. There were 46.7 percent (48.6 percent intervention, 44.8 percent comparison) of students which were eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch, 19.7 percent (23.7 percent intervention, 15.8 percent comparison) were English learners, and 7.4 percent (6.6 percent intervention, 8.2 percent comparison) received special education services (p. 554).
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction was implemented during the 90-minute reading block and through a 30-minute small group (3 to 5 students) enhanced instruction. The intervention lasted the duration of the school year. The ECRI intervention prioritizes critical reading content and utilizes explicit instruction. The small group instruction was designed to align closely with the reading block instruction (p. 555).
Students in the comparison condition received the standard reading instruction typically provided at their schools. The study reported that whole group instruction occurred for an average of 50.0 minutes, 36.7 minutes were spent in small group instruction, and 29.2 minutes were spent doing independent work (p. 556).
Prior to implementing the intervention, the intervention condition teachers participated in three days of professional development and two days of follow-up training in October. The intervention condition small group instructors participated in two days of professional development and one day of follow-up training in January. ECRI coaches visited classrooms and small group instruction to provide coaching support once per month.
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