Wanzek, Jeanne; Roberts, Greg (2012). Learning Disability Quarterly, v35 n2 p90-101. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1004796
Reviewed: November 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 Comprehension Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
86.21 |
90.74 |
No |
-- |
|
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 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
83.12 |
81.87 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Reading Comprehension subtest |
Reading intervention 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
452.46 |
463.36 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT-4) vocabulary subtest |
Reading intervention 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
459.67 |
452.78 |
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 |
Reading intervention 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
99.00 |
95.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Attack Subtest: Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III |
Reading intervention 2 (Wanzek & Roberts (2012)) vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Comprehension emphasis intervention vs. Comparison;
|
98.42 |
96.39 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 89% | |
| White | 9% |
| Hispanic | 89% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 11% |
The study was conducted in five elementary schools in a southwestern school district of the United States.
Demographic characteristics for the intervention condition are as follows: 29.2% female; 79.2% Hispanic, 16.7% White, and 4.2% Black; 4.2% were identified as having a specific learning disability; 62.5% were classified as having limited English proficiency; and 83.3% qualified for free/reduced-price lunch. Demographic characteristics for the comparison condition are as follows: 43.5% female; 100% Hispanic; 13.0% were identified as having a specific learning disability; 74.0% were classified as having limited English proficiency, and 100% qualified for free/reduced-price lunch.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention was delivered by a trained teacher to small groups of 2-4 students. Intervention sessions met daily for 30 minutes for 28 weeks. The intervention teacher utilized the Collaborative Strategic Reading program (Klinger, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001). Students received instruction in reading comprehension strategies that involved four steps: preview, click and chunk, get the gist, and wrap up. Students engaged in text reading for 8-10 minutes and vocabulary instruction for 3-4 minutes. Students kept a reading log of their strategy use.
Students in the comparison condition received school-provided supplemental reading instruction in small groups of 2-3 students. Teachers reported that the instruction consisted of practicing test-taking skills specific to reading passages and answering questions (e.g., decoding unknown words, using context clues to determine the meaning of words, identifying main ideas, and locating key information to answer comprehension questions).
Intervention teachers were observed weekly and provide with feedback and were rated on a fidelity checklist monthly. Intervention teachers met weekly as a group.
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