No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
For:
-
Publication (findings for Adult Education)
Rating:
-
Meets WWC standards with reservations
because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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.
Alphabetics outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Wide Range Achievement Test- Third Edition (WRAT-3): Spelling subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
177 students
|
1.43
|
0.47
|
No
|
--
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
182 students
|
3.89
|
2.54
|
No
|
--
|
|
Developmental Spelling Test
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
146 students
|
0.24
|
0.46
|
No
|
--
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
171 students
|
-1.51
|
-0.09
|
No
|
--
|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revision 3 (WRAT-3): reading subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
178 students
|
2.63
|
4.06
|
No
|
--
|
|
Developmental Spelling Test
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
212 students
|
0.24
|
0.78
|
No
|
--
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
241 students
|
3.89
|
5.49
|
No
|
--
|
|
Letter-Sound Survey
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
250 students
|
0.60
|
1.74
|
No
|
--
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Letter-Word Identification
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
181 students
|
-2.18
|
2.15
|
No
|
--
|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revision 3 (WRAT-3): reading subtest
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
229 students
|
2.63
|
5.45
|
No
|
--
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised Test of Achievement (WJ-R ACH): Letter-Word Identification
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. Adult curriculum;
242 students
|
-2.18
|
2.44
|
No
|
--
|
|
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Nelson comprehension test
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
176 students
|
1.21
|
2.86
|
No
|
--
|
|
Reading Fluency outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Passage Reading Test
|
Adult Education vs.
Business as usual
|
2 Months
|
Adapted curriculum vs. business-as-usual;
169 students
|
-1.31
|
2.09
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
35%
English language learners
-
Female: 66%
Male: 34%
-
-
Race
Asian |
|
15% |
Black |
|
20% |
Other or unknown |
|
30% |
White |
|
35% |
-
Ethnicity
Hispanic |
|
24% |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
76% |
Setting
The study took place in 23 adult literacy programs located in 12 states. These programs included 71 reading classes and 34 instructors.
Study sample
The initial sample consisted of 349 learners. These learners attended an adult literacy program that provided class-based instruction to English-speaking adults at the intermediate level. Sixty-six percent of learners were female. The race/ethnicity distribution of learners was 35 percent White, 24 percent Hispanic, 20 percent Black, 15 percent Asian, and 6 percent in an unspecified other category. Thirty-five percent were born and educated outside of the United States. Sixty-three percent had low incomes based on the poverty threshold of $12,000 annual salary. Thirty-one percent were identified as having a learning disability.
Intervention Group
The treatment curriculum provided explicit instruction on reading and spelling. The curriculum was adapted for adult learners from a structured curriculum, originally designed for K–3 students, that focused on decoding and spelling. Additional information about the curricula was not provided. Classes lasted approximately 30 weeks and met one to five days per week.
Comparison Group
There were two comparison conditions. In both groups, classes lasted approximately 30 weeks and met one to five days per week.
The first group continued using the existing reading instruction. These classes did not use a published scope and sequence. Teachers typically included some decoding in their instruction, but placed more emphasis on spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension.
The second comparison group used a curriculum called Making Sense of Decoding and Spelling, which was designed specifically for adult learners. Teachers in this condition used the study curriculum to teach decoding and spelling. The curriculum includes a review of alphabetic decoding skills and principles and teaches a strategy for decoding multisyllabic words to be used throughout the curriculum. Instruction was primarily delivered to the whole group in scripted lessons, but lessons include paired- and individual-learner reading practice designed to improve reading speed. Each lesson includes progress monitoring assessments. Instructors were given lesson plans with examples and presentation materials.
Support for implementation
The researchers measured attendance and hours of instruction for each of the study groups. The mean number of hours of instruction was approximately 65 among those using a K–3 curriculum adapted for adult learners, 60 among those using existing reading instruction, and 50 among those using the MSDS curriculum. Attendance rates were 57 percent, 51, and 55 percent, respectively. The researchers also looked at whether MSDS was implemented as intended by calculating the percentage of lessons taught, the number of hours of study curriculum offered to learners, and the level of fidelity to the scripted lessons based on classroom observations. The median percentage of lessons taught was 92 percent; the mean total hours of study curriculum was 27; and the mean fidelity scores were 2.18 on a scale of 0 to 3 on the classroom observation form, where a score of 3 means all segments were taught as scripted.