Study: 89425

National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report. Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap: First Year Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers. NCEE 2006-4002 [Corrective Reading vs. business as usual]

Torgesen, Joseph; Myers, David; Schirm, Allen; Stuart, Elizabeth; Vartivarian, Sonya; Mansfield, Wendy; Stancavage, Fran; Durno, Donna; Javorsky, Rosanne; Haan, Cinthia (2006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED491144

Practice Guide

Review Details

Reviewed: September 2021

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards with reservations

For:

Practice Guide (findings for Corrective Reading)

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.

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 Subtest: AIMSweb	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	99.40	94.50	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) Passage Comprehension subtest	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	93.10	91.30	No	--

Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	89.80	87.60	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	97.10	95.20	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	87.20	85.30	No	--
Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock Reading Master Tests - Revised	Corrective Reading vs. Business as usual	Corrective Reading v C5th grade sample; 86 students	92.10	91.80	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: 46%
Male: 54%
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
Pennsylvania

Race
Black		16%
White		85%

Study Details

Setting

The study was conducted in 50 elementary schools located within 27 school districts outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Study sample

The study sample was 16 percent Black and 85 percent White. Fifty-four percent of the sample was male and 46 percent of the sample was female. Thirty-three percent of the sample had been diagnosed with a specific learning disability. Finally, 41 percent of the sample was eligible for free or reduced price lunch.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. In this contrast, the intervention group received the Corrective Reading program. Students met in small groups of 3 with a teacher for 50 minutes a day, five days a week, from the first week of November through the first week of May. The Corrective Reading program consisted of scripted lessons that provide instruction word decoding, as well as reading fluency.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition received typical reading instruction and interventions provided by their schools.

Support for implementation

Intervention teachers participated in approximately 70 hours of professional development.