Wanzek, Jeanne; Petscher, Yaacov; Al Otaiba, Stephanie; Kent, Shawn; Christopher, Schatschneider; Haynes, Martha; Rivas, Brenna K.; Jones, Francesca G. (2016). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577133
Reviewed: September 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oral Reading Fluency Rate: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
92.72 |
100.78 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
456.75 |
452.36 |
No |
-- | |
|
Passage Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
487.95 |
488.06 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
494.43 |
496.25 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-Word Identification Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
491.72 |
494.13 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
84.82 |
88.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)- Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Passport to Literacy vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
88.79 |
91.41 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 41% | |
| Native American | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 5% | |
| Pacific Islander | 1% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 40% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 60% |
The study was conducted in 10 public elementary schools across four school districts in two states. The study examines fourth-grade students performing below the 35th percentile (30th or below on the reading comprehension subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests).
The sample at randomization included 49.8 percent female students, 40.3 percent of students identified as Hispanic, 40.7 percent African American, 31.6 percent Caucasian, 20.8 percent American Indian,1.8 percent Asian, and 0.5 percent Pacific Islander students (the remaining 4.7 percent of students were multiracial or had missing race information). Seventy-five percent of the sample was eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 13.5 percent were English learners, and 18 percent were identified as having a disability. Information for the specific disability was not available for all students.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The Passport to Literacy intervention was implemented in daily, 30-minute sessions in groups of four to six students for 24 weeks. Each of the 120 lessons addressed phonics, word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The intervention was delivered in a small group of four to seven students.
Students in the comparison condition received the supplemental intervention typically provided at their schools (which varied by school). The length of the intervention and the size of the groups varied across schools and classrooms. Thirty-five of the students in the comparison condition received a direct, supplemental reading instruction/intervention from a teacher during the school day, and 75 students in the comparison group did not receive a supplemental intervention.
Prior to implementing the Passport to Literacy intervention, teachers participated in eight hours of training provided over a two-day period. After the initial training, project coordinators provided coaching visits twice each month to provide feedback to teachers and discuss questions or concerns. Intervention teachers also participated in monthly meetings.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube