Piasta, Shayne B.; Sawyer, Brook; Justice, Laura M.; O'Connell, Ann A.; Jiang, Hui; Dogucu, Mine; Khan, Kiren S. (2020). Journal of Early Intervention, v42 n3 p224-243. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1260922
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) Uppercase and Lowercase Letter Recognition subtests |
Read It Again (RIA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.26 |
30.53 |
No |
-- | |
|
Prereading Inventory of Phonological Awareness Rhyme Awareness subtest - phonological awareness |
Read It Again (RIA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.31 |
4.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
Preschool Word and Print Awareness - print-concept knowledge |
Read It Again (RIA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
106.06 |
105.75 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Renfrew Bus Story - narrative |
Read It Again (RIA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.20 |
17.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL), definitional vocabulary subtest |
Read It Again (RIA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
47.76 |
48.76 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 20% | |
| Other or unknown | 15% | |
| White | 65% |
| Hispanic | 17% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 83% |
The study took place in two states in 109 early childhood special education (ECSE) classrooms. Over one-fourth (27%) were self-contained ECSE classrooms. The majority (72%) were affiliated with local public schools, with the remaining 28 percent affiliated with Head Start programs.
Teachers were an average of 42 years old and predominantly female (92%). The majority were White (89%) and the remainder were Black (5%) and LatinX (8%). Students were on average 52 months old and primarily boys (59%). The majority were White (65%) with 20 percent Black, 17 percent Hispanic or LatinX, and 15 percent identified as "other" or multiple races. Children who were receiving special education services had been diagnosed with speech or language impairment (28%); developmental delay (16%); autism spectrum disorder (9%); emotional disturbance (0.9%); specific learning disability (0.9%); intellectual disability (0.6%); visual, hearing, orthopedic, or other health impairment (4%); or multiple disabilities (22%). Parents did not report specific diagnoses for the remaining 19 percent of children with disabilities.
The Read it again! (RIA) intervention is a curriculum (manual and lessons) plus accompanying 15 commercially available children's books. RIA was implemented over 30 weeks and provided two lessons per week as part of whole-class instruction (60 lessons in total). RIA lessons follow a systematic scope and sequence, and they embed explicit instruction in key meaning-based skills and code-based skills within shared book reading. Lessons are approximately 20 minutes long and soft scripted. RIA encourages teachers to differentiate instruction through scaffolding. Caregivers of children in the intervention group also received four of the RIA books (one book every 6 weeks), and they were encouraged to read these books to their children once a week.
The comparison teachers used the same 15 books as the intervention teachers. They devoted two sessions per week for 30 weeks to this portion of their curriculum, but they taught using a business-as-usual approach.
Teachers received an 8-hour RIA training by means of an in-person workshop prior to implementation. A 3-hour, mid-year refresher workshop also was provided.
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