Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2016). Reading Psychology, v37 n6 p833-866. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1100465
Reviewed: January 2023
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Target Word Learning: Spelling |
Early Vocabulary Connections with additional spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
38.10 |
26.36 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU): Mean of Word Attack and Word Identification standard scores |
Early Vocabulary Connections with additional spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.37 |
103.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-4 (WRAT-4) Spelling Subtest |
Early Vocabulary Connections with additional spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
100.08 |
96.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IIIA) |
Early Vocabulary Connections with additional spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
86.45 |
76.67 |
No |
-- | |
|
Experimenter-developed curriculum based measure of target word reading vocabulary |
Early Vocabulary Connections with additional spelling instruction – Vadasy & Sanders (2016) vs. Early Vocabulary Connections |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.20 |
39.43 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 7 urban, public elementary schools in the Northwest that had above-average proportions of English learners.
A total of 100 students were included in the study. The 100 students were in 20 kindergarten classrooms. The students in this sample were on average 5.5 years old. About half of the sample was female (46 percent) and about three-quarters received English learner (EL) services (77 percent). The study does not provide further information about the race and ethnicity of the study sample. In the schools where the study was conducted, 69 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. This statistic is not provided for the students in the study sample.
The intervention has two components: explicit vocabulary instruction and spelling instruction. The explicit vocabulary component is based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. In the intervention condition students received individual instruction from trained paraeducator tutors outside classrooms for 15 minutes per day, four days per week, for an average of 14 weeks. These sessions focused on a set of vocabulary words drawn from the Common Core State Standards. Each new target word from the list was taught through four activities: (1) explicitly defining the target word using a student-friendly definition, (2) hearing the word read aloud in a sentence paired with an illustration, (3) student practice using the word in a sentence, and (4) student practice reading the word in a sentence or story with tutor scaffolding. Each of these activities incorporated explicit written spelling practice, including word reading and pronunciation practice. At the end of each lesson, students practiced spelling three previously taught target words from dictation.
The comparison group received explicit vocabulary instruction based on the Early Vocabulary Connections intervention. Students received 15 minutes of individual instruction per day, 4 days a week for 14 weeks. Students in the comparison condition covered the same words using the same four activities as the intervention condition. However, students did not receive explicit spelling practice. Instead, at the end of each lesson, students were given two prompts to use the target word in a sentence. The same tutors that implemented the intervention condition in a particular school also implemented the comparison condition in that school.
Tutors participated in a one-hour training, including modeling each of the teaching activities for both conditions, and discussions of strategies to support and scaffold student oral and written responses. After the beginning of the study, staff observed tutoring sessions to monitor fidelity and provide coaching (during the first two weeks only).
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