
Effects of a Year Long Supplemental Reading Intervention for Students with Reading Difficulties in Fourth Grade [Passport to Literacy vs. business as usual]
Wanzek, Jeanne; Petscher, Yaacov; Otaiba, Stephanie Al; Rivas, Brenna K.; Jones, Francesca G.; Kent, Shawn C.; Schatschneider, Christopher; Mehta, Paras (2017). Journal of Educational Psychology, v109 n8 p1103-1119. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160638
-
examining405Students, grade4
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Passport to Literacy)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- 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
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test–4 (GRMT- 4) |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
459.25 |
454.23 |
No |
-- | |
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
488.12 |
486.98 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT-4) vocabulary subtest |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
462.08 |
462.04 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
492.79 |
493.23 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Word Attack Subtest |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
495.47 |
496.31 |
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.
-
13% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Rural, Urban
-
Race Asian 1% Black 35% Native American 17% Other or unknown 2% White 44% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 54%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 16 public elementary schools, which were located in six school districts in three states. One district was located in a large metropolitan area, one was located in a midsize city, and the remaining districts were located in rural areas. The students were in fourth grade.
Study sample
The authors provide sample characteristics for the randomized sample, not the analysis sample. The randomized sample was: 49% male, 46% Hispanic, 35% Black, 44% White, 17% American Indian, 1% Asian, and 2% multiracial. About 13% of students for whom language status was reported were either receiving English language services or had a primary language other than English. Eighty-five percent of the sample was described as low income or qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. Fifteen percent of the students in the sample had an identified disability. Most of these students either had a learning disability or a speech/language disability.
Intervention Group
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention was called Passport to Literacy. It consisted of 30-minute lessons that were provided daily for 25 weeks. For a full school year, this would sum to 120 lessons. Teachers delivered the intervention to small groups during the school day, but not during the time when core literacy instruction was delivered in the classroom. Instead, sessions were typically scheduled for a time reserved for intervention or enrichment. The intervention was divided into 12, 10-day adventures. Each lesson covered phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Teachers did not deliver the entire 120 lesson intervention. Instead, they delivered between 83 and 106 lessons to their intervention groups. On average, lessons lasted 28.56 minutes (SD=4.07). About 27% of the intervention group was also receiving supplemental instruction that was provided by the school.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received the typical instruction provided by their schools. For 30% of comparison students, this included supplemental instruction provided by the schools.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers participated in an 8-hour training that was delivered over two days. During the training, they gained familiarity with the intervention program and instructional routines, practiced implementing lessons, and discussed positive behavioral supports. Project coordinators provided coaching to teachers twice per month. During these sessions, they offered feedback on implementation, answered questions, and discussed any concerns. Within each site, all of the teachers met once per month. These meetings were designed to offer continual support to teachers and ensure the intervention was implemented with fidelity.
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).