Study: 89618

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 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

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-silent outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency (TOSRE)	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 258 students	86.30	85.10	No	--
AIMSweb reading maze	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 257 students	23.50	24.50	No	--

Reading Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index	Evidence tier
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 244 students	87.70	86.70	No	--
Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE): Passage Comprehension subtest	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	0 Days	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 258 students	86.20	86.10	No	--

Word and pseudoword reading outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 244 students	94.00	91.40	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 244 students	95.10	92.40	No	--
Spelling Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 242 students	95.00	91.90	No	--
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 244 students	95.70	93.70	No	--
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III	Reading intervention 1 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Other intervention	Full sample: Researcher designed small group vs researcher designed large group; 244 students	95.80	95.20	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: 43%
Male: 57%
Rural, Suburban, Urban
- 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
Texas

Race
Asian		3%
Black		40%
Native American		0%
Other or unknown		43%
White		14%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		43%
Not Hispanic or Latino		57%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in six schools across two large, urban sites in the southwestern United States. Across all schools, the student population ranged in size from 633 to 1300 students, and the rate of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch ranged from 56% to 86% in one site and from 40% to 85% in the other site.

Study sample

Of the 486 students included in the study, 43 percent were female, and 74 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. The sample included 193 African American students (40 percent), 211 Hispanic students (43 percent), 67 White students (14 percent), 13 Asian students (3 percent), and 2 American Indian students (0.41 percent). Only 258 students were included in the analytic sample for this contrast.

Intervention Group

The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. This review compares the researcher-designed small-group intervention (intervention condition) with the researcher-designed large-group intervention (comparison condition). The difference between experimental groups was the size of the group through which the reading intervention was delivered (in all other ways, the intervention and comparison conditions were identical). In this contrast, the intervention condition was implemented in groups of three to five students. Students in both the small-group intervention group and the large-group intervention group were provided the same multi-component instructional reading intervention that addressed multisyllable word reading, academic vocabulary acquisition, reading fluency, and comprehension. The experimental groups met for 45 to 50 minutes each day over the course of a full school year (from September through May). The reading intervention was composed of three phases of instruction, each of which prioritized an element of instruction and also incorporated the skills and knowledge covered in previous phases. Phase I focused on word study and fluency and vocabulary and comprehension. Phase II focused on vocabulary and comprehension and included additional instruction and practice in word study and fluency skills and strategies. Phase III continued the focus on vocabulary and comprehension and emphasized independent student application of skills and strategies.

Comparison Group

The comparison condition was the researcher-designed large-group intervention, implemented in groups of 10 to 15 students. The large-group intervention was delivered in a 50-minute class session each day throughout the entire school year using the same reading intervention as that of the intervention condition. The only difference between the two groups was the size of the groups to which the reading intervention was delivered.

Support for implementation

The researchers provided intervention teachers with approximately 60 hours of professional development prior to teaching as well as an additional nine hours of professional development related to the intervention throughout the year. Professional development hours included training on methods specific to the intervention, features of effective instruction, behavior management, and general information about adolescent struggling readers. Teachers received ongoing feedback and coaching, and there were biweekly staff development meetings.

The Relative Effects of Group Size on Reading Progress of Older Students with Reading Difficulties [Reading intervention on word study, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (small group) vs. Reading intervention on word study, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (large group)]