Konstantopoulos, S. (2018). https://ehe.osu.edu/sites/ehe.osu.edu/files/HEROES%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf.
Reviewed: December 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revised 3 (SLOSSON) (Konstantopoulos, 2018) |
HEROES vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA): Total Score |
HEROES vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 19% | |
| White | 60% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study of the HEROES project took place in 95 schools within Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In Ohio, there was one site and four districts, including Dublin City, South-Western City, Teays Valley Local, and Worthington City. In South Carolina, there were four sites and twelve districts. Georgia had two sites and two districts. Tennessee had one site and two districts (p. 3).
The sample was 60% white, 21% black, and 19% Latino. Seventy percent were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 35% were female, and 17% were English Learners. All sample members had an Individualized Education Program (IEP), with the most common diagnoses being specific learning disability (55%), developmental delay (25%), and other health impairment (9%).
The HEROES (Helping Early Readers Obtain Excellence in Special Education) intervention aims to improve reading outcomes for young students, often labeled as having a specific learning disability in reading and having the greatest difficulty with learning to read. Special education teachers participate in two graduate courses to learn how to design and deliver a lesson format that contains five components: decontextualized word work, writing, taking a Running Record, fluent and phrased reading, and reading a challenging-level book with teacher scaffolding to decode. Teachers learn to tailor the lesson components in response to students’ needs and focus on instruction that analyses show to be most predictive of student reading growth.
Students in the comparison group did not receive the literacy intervention. Students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had in the past.
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which provided teachers with a reading instruction framework and guidance as to which elements to implement over the course of three years.
Reviewed: December 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OSELA) - Observation Survey Total Score (SCALE) |
HEROES vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revised 3 (SLOSSON) |
HEROES vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 40% | |
| White | 60% |
The study utilized a samples drawn from four different states - OH, TN, SC, and GA. The program was conducted in the classrooms with students with high needs. Teachers were given reading instruction frameworks to implement in the schools.
Students in the intervention group were aged 6-9, had difficulty with beginning reading, had a learning disability and an IEP that identified progress in reading as a goal, needed special education services for reading, worked with an alternative reading program, were one grade behind age peers in reading achievement, and were at the beginning reading stage. The full sample was primarily male (65%), and mostly white (60%), though 21% of students were African-American and 19% were Latino. Most students (70%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Seventeen percent of students were English language learners. Most students were in second or third grade and on average 7.6 years old.
The HEROES intervention was designed to serve young (age 6-9) high need students who have difficulty with reading. Teachers receive a reading instruction framework composed of five lesson components: word work, writing, taking running records, familiar rereading, and reading new books. Teachers are allowed to focus on the elements of the framework they believe to be most critical, allowing for natural variation. In the study, the HEROES intervention differed during each implementation year. During the first year teachers were provided with the five optional lesson components and could focus on what they deemed most critical. In the second year, taking running records, familiar rereading, and reading new books became mandatory components while the others remained optional. In the third year, teachers were instructed to focus on the practices most consistently predictive of student reading growth: taking running records, familiar rereading, and reading new books. The author did not specify the expected frequency of use or time used.
The comparison group did not receive the intervention. The author did not specify that they received anything other than business as usual. At study entry, most students (68.9%) were receiving a classroom reading program with modifications, though some received a classroom reading program without modifications (19.9%) or alternative core reading program (10.6%). Most received instruction from a classroom teacher (50.9%) or classroom teacher and intervention specialist (44.1%), though some received instruction from an intervention specialist (4.3%). Most (83.9%) received modified reading instruction in addition to core. Instruction was typically in small groups (80.7%) though some students experienced small groups (3.1%).
The author does not describe support for implementation.
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