Study: 89427

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 [Failure Free 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 Failure Free 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	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	79.15	79.45	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	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	92.40	92.10	No	--
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	91.50	93.10	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	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	88.30	86.60	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	86.70	85.60	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	93.50	94.40	No	--
Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock Reading Master Tests - Revised	Failure Free Reading vs. Business as usual	Failure Free Reading v C5th grade sample; 126 students	91.20	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: 48%
Male: 52%
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		19%
White		81%

Study Details

Setting

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

Study sample

The sample was in fifth grade. The study sample was 19 percent Black and 81 percent White. Thirty-three percent of the sample had been diagnosed with a specific learning disability. Finally, 43 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 Failure Free 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 weeks of May. The Failure Free Reading program provided instruction in sight word vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension through computer-based instruction, workbook activities, and teacher-led instruction. Although students met in groups of three, they mostly worked independently.

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.