Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2008). Remedial and Special Education, v29 n4 p235-249. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ802169
Reviewed: September 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency Rate: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.00 |
82.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Passage Comprehension subtest |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.00 |
88.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised/Normative Update |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.00 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised/Normative Update |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.00 |
91.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sight Word Subtest: Test of Word Reading Efficiency |
QuickReads vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
90.00 |
91.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 40% | |
| Other or unknown | 27% | |
| White | 24% |
| Hispanic | 13% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 87% |
The study was conducted in a large northwestern city in the United States. The sample was drawn from 12 public elementary schools within the same district.
This study included 4th- and 5th-grade students with poor reading skills. The sample was 9% Asian, 40% Black, 13% Hispanic, 24% White, and 14% mixed/other. Forty-six percent of the sample was male, and 27% were English language learners. Twenty-three percent of students were in special education, and 90% were low-income (Title 1).
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. Students in the intervention condition received a supplemental reading fluency instruction called Quick Reads. Students were pulled out of the classroom in pairs to work with a tutor for 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 20 weeks. Students participated in 57 tutoring sessions on average (resulting in 28.5 hours of intervention received, on average). Each tutoring session consisted of seven parts. First, students are introduced to new vocabulary they will encounter in the reading passages. Next, each student takes a turn reading the passage. Students re-read the passage two more times with the teacher. The fourth reading is timed to assess how many words the students can read in 1 minute. Next, the students answer two comprehension questions based on the passage. The teacher then reviews vocabulary from the previous passage. Students complete these steps again for a new reading passage. Reading passages consist of non-fiction science or social studies text.
The control condition in this study was business-as-usual classroom instruction using the typical basal reading curriculum.
Tutors attended an initial 4-hour training on reading fluency development and Quick Reads. The intervention was scripted. Tutors were visited weekly by coaches to support intervention delivery. A mid-year, 3-hour workshop was held to reinforce tutoring strategies and behavior management.
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