Sabatini, John P.; Shore, Jane; Holtzman, Steven; Scarborough, Hollis S. (2011). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v4 n2 p118-133. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920177
Reviewed: January 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
471.29 |
463.34 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
12.47 |
10.38 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
60.45 |
57.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
58.80 |
56.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
470.28 |
468.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
11.93 |
11.17 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Letter-word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
482.64 |
483.32 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Identification subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
483.97 |
484.77 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
484.50 |
485.58 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
483.84 |
486.76 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson: Reading fluency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Repeated Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v GRR;
|
490.92 |
492.26 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson: Reading fluency subtest |
Adult Education vs. Corrective Reading |
0 Days |
RAVE-O v CR;
|
490.57 |
493.04 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 83% | |
| Other or unknown | 9% | |
| White | 8% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study took place in several large adult education centers in two major cities in the mid-Atlantic and southern regions of the United States.
The initial sample consisted of 300 learners. These learners scored below the 7th grade level on a word recognition test and demonstrated English proficiency if they were not a native English speaker. Sixty-seven percent of learners were female; on average, they were 36 years old. Eighty-three percent were African American, 9 percent were Latino(a), and 8 percent were White.
The Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elaboration-Orthography (RAVE-O) program provided explicit instruction on reading by supplementing phonics instruction with fluency training and a stronger focus on fluency. This approach was based on the Double Deficit hypothesis, which suggests deficits in either phonological processing or naming speed can impede reading acquisition. RAVE-O is designed to address a naming speed deficit or a double deficit and is combined with an abbreviated version of Corrective Reading, a systematic phonics program described in its own profile. Instructional time is 25 to 35 percent phonics and 65 to 75 percent fluency. Instructional sessions were conducted three times per week for 10 to 18 weeks. The goal was to complete 45 sessions of 75 minutes each.
The comparison group participated in one of two tutoring programs: either Corrective Reading (CR) or Guided Repeated Reading (GRR). The adaptation of the CR program provided explicit instruction on reading, using a traditional phonics instruction for treating reading disabilities that is commonly used in adolescents. Instruction focuses on strengthening and expanding the reader’s mastery of grapheme-phoneme correspondences, and on word recognition. Through CR, learners are taught the structure of words through an explicit, systematic, and sequenced curriculum that teaches decoding and spelling, with phonemic analyses that are taught in relation to syllable types. Learners progress from a phonological focus to word-level practice, and eventually to processing words quickly by recognizing patterns and reading context. Learners also read controlled (decodable) texts to gain fluency. Instructional time is 80 to 90 percent phonics, and 10 to 20 percent fluency. Instructional sessions were conducted three times per week for 10–18 weeks. The goal was to complete 45 sessions of 75 minutes each. The Guided Repeated Reading (GRR) program provided explicit instruction on reading and was designed specifically for adult learners. It targets text fluency skills, although phonics instruction is also embedded within the GRR approach. Instruction includes teacher modeling oral reading, shared reading between learner and teacher—reading orally in unison, and learners reading orally by themselves up to three times in the same session. The reading passages are brief, contain predictable and rhythmic text to promote fluency, and are selected based on the level and interests of the adult learners. Less than 10 to 20 percent of instructional time is spent on phonics, and 80 to 90 percent or more is spent on fluency. Instructional sessions were conducted three times per week for 10–18 weeks. The goal was to complete 45 sessions of 75 minutes each.
Tutors had a bachelor’s degree and were comfortable with technology. Tutor training included a one-day (5–6 hour) workshop, two individual follow-up meetings of about 1–2 hours each with experienced tutors or trainers, and review and practice with materials, role-plays, and reviews of sample sessions. Total time spent training was 12 to 18 hours. During implementation, conferences were conducted to ensure techniques were being consistently applied.
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.
Scarborough, Hollis S.; Sabatini, John P.; Shore, Jane; Cutting, Laurie E.; Pugh, Kenneth; Katz, Leonard. (2013). Meaningful Reading Gains by Adult Literacy Learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v26 n4 p593-613.
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