Study: 89420

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: November 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

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.

Findings

Passage reading fluency-oral outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Oral reading fluency (ORF): Calhoon et al. (2010)	Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Additive vs. Integrated; 61 students	110.31	102.70	No	--

Passage reading fluency-silent outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Reading Fluency Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Additive vs. Integrated; 61 students	86.69	84.80	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Gray Silent Reading Test	Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Additive vs. Integrated; 61 students	89.44	77.07	No	--

Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Substantively important positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Additive vs. Integrated; 61 students	89.17	80.23	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Calhoon et al. (2010)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Additive vs. Integrated; 61 students	94.98	90.63	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 34%
Male: 66%
Suburban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South

Race
Asian		7%
Black		33%
Other or unknown		27%
White		33%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		28%
Not Hispanic or Latino		72%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place at two middle schools in a southeastern U.S. school district. Instruction for all modules took place during students’ daily 70-minute special education resource language arts class period.

Study sample

Student participants were in middle school (sixth to eighth grades) with reading disabilities and on average approximately 12 years old. The Integrated group was 36.7 percent female and the Additive group was 32.3 percent female. The Integrated group was 36.7 percent Hispanic, 30.0 percent White, 26.7 percent African American, and 6.7 percent Asian; and the Additive group was 19.4 percent Hispanic, 35.5 percent White, 38.7 percent African American, and 6.5 percent Asian. The majority of students were in sixth grade. In the Integrated group, two students (6.7 percent) had been retained two years, 10 students (33.3 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest (18 students, 60 percent) had not been retained. In the Additive group, one student (3.2 percent) had been retained for two years, 11 students (35.5 percent) had been retained one year, and the rest (19 students, 61.3 percent) had not been retained. In the Integrated group, 11 students (36.7 percent) had attended two schools, 16 students (53.3 percent) had attended three or four schools, and 3 students (10 percent) had attended five to eight schools. In the Additive group, 12 students (38.7 percent) had attended two schools, 12 students (38.7 percent) had attended three or four schools, and seven students (22.6 percent) had attended five to eight schools. Sixty-seven percent of students had a specific learning disability and 2 percent of students had emotional disturbance. Of the six teachers, five teachers were female, and one was male, and five were White, and one was African American. The mean age of the teachers was 51.22 years (SD=3.52, range 48-57); and the mean number of years teaching was 8.88 years (SD=4.04, range 3-13 years). One teacher was teaching on a special education emergency license, one had a bachelor’s degree, three had master’s degrees, and one had an Ed.S. degree in education.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention condition was the Additive component of the Reading Achievement Multi-Modular Program (RAMP-UP). RAMP-UP is an expansion of the Linguistics Skills Training program (LST)/Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program. RAMP-UP incorporates small group sizes, directed questioning and responses, guided practice, explicit and direct instruction, extended practice opportunities with feedback, breaking down tasks into component parts, reading fluency, reading comprehension strategies, and contextual reading. Instruction took place during the student’s daily 70-min special education resource language arts class period. The intervention duration was 45 minutes per day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks. The Additive module focuses on developing automaticity of core linguistic skills and provides up-front isolated linguistics skill instruction. The Additive module is comprised of three 7-week segments and one 5-week segment, where the first segment addresses isolated linguistics skill instruction. The second segment adds spelling instruction; and the third segment adds fluency instruction. During the fourth segment, comprehension instruction is added and linguistic skill instruction is discontinued.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition is the Integrated component of RAMP-UP. The Integrated module combines instruction of the spelling and fluency components with the linguistics skill component. The organization of the Integrated module is 3 days of linguistics skills, spelling, and fluency instruction alternated with 2 days of comprehension instruction, for each week of implementation. Instruction in all study classrooms occurred 45 minutes a day, 5 days a week, for 26 weeks.

Support for implementation

Before the study began, the teachers participated in a 2-day workshop that focused on the instructional components (linguistics, spelling, fluency, and comprehension). During the first training session, teachers were taught peer-mediated procedures for the components and used role-playing techniques to practice. Then, the structure and content of each component were taught. An additional 33 hours of training was provided throughout the 26 weeks of implementation to support the teaching of linguistics skills and spelling. Graduate research assistants (GRAs) provided ongoing support by participating in 90 percent of all lessons, helping monitor students during lesson implementation, and providing corrective feedback.

Reorganizing the Instructional Reading Components: Could There Be a Better Way to Design Remedial Reading Programs to Maximize Middle School Students with Reading Disabilities' Response to Treatment? [Reading intervention 1 vs. Reading intervention 3 (Calhoon et al. (2010))]