White, R., Haslam, B. M., & Hewes, G. (2006). Policy Studies Associates. https://www.policystudies.com.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stanford Achievement Test (9th edition; SAT-9), Reading Comprehension subtest |
READ 180® vs. Unknown |
0 Days |
Cohort 1 (9th Grade 2003-2004);
|
31.40 |
30.10 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in the Phoenix Union High School District in Arizona.
The participants were ninth-grade students who were reading one or more grade levels below their assigned grade level. The analytic sample varied with the outcome measure. Of the intervention group in Cohort 1, 51 percent were eligible for English language learner (ELL) services and 8 percent were eligible for special education services. Of the comparison group in Cohort 1, 55 percent were eligible for ELL services and 8 percent were eligible for special education services. The study did not provide more details on the characteristics of students.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention group received the Scholastic’s READ 180 program, Version 1.6 for one year. The study provided no other information about the intervention.
The study did not provide information on the comparison group, other than the comparison group students did not participate in READ 180.
The study did not provide any information about implementation support.
Reviewed: November 2016
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for READ 180®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 2;
|
41.20 |
38.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 3;
|
39.00 |
38.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 2 EL;
|
39.90 |
35.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 2 Low Score;
|
39.80 |
36.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 2 Non-EL;
|
42.00 |
40.50 |
Yes |
|
||
|
TerraNova Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Cohort 2 High Score;
|
46.10 |
45.60 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 85% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 15% |
The study took place in the Phoenix Union High School District in Arizona.
All students in grades 9 and 10 who were reading one or more grade levels below their assigned grade level were considered for the study; however, the READ 180® program did not have space for all eligible students. Students in the READ 180® program were included in the study if they met all of the following criteria: • had two or more SRI scores at least 45 days apart (to allow for analysis of changes in SRI scores). • had Stanford 9 and/or TerraNova scores from both eighth and ninth grades. • had a matched nonparticipant available for the purposes of comparison. Students were matched on eighth-grade reading proficiency (measured by the Stanford 9 in 2003–04 and 2004–05 and the TerraNova in 2004–05 and 2005–06), EL status, special education eligibility, gender, and ethnicity. Four cohorts of students were studied: Cohort 1: This cohort included ninth graders in the 2003–04 school year. This cohort did not meet eligibility requirements specified in the Adolescent Literacy protocol because 53% of students from this cohort were eligible for EL services. Cohort 2: This cohort included 1,630 students in grade 9 in the 2004–05 school year. The sample included 815 students in each condition, among whom: 40% of the intervention (READ 180®) group and 44% of comparison group students were eligible for EL services, 7% of the intervention group and 10% of comparison group students were eligible for special education, 48% of the intervention group and 49% of comparison group were female, and 84% of the intervention group and 86% of comparison group students were Hispanic. Follow-up outcomes were collected 1 year later in tenth grade (2005–06). Although the additional source for this study (Scholastic Research and Results, 2008) indicated that there were 821 students in each condition, a query response received from the authors confirmed that there were 815 students in each group (as reported in White et al., 2006). Cohort 3: This cohort included 2,058 students in grade 9 in the 2005–06 school year. Although the White et al. (2006) article indicated that this cohort included only the intervention group, This cohort is discussed in Scholastic Research and Results (2008) but not in White et al. (2006). Scholastic Research and Results (2008) indicated that there was a comparison group for this cohort. The presence of a comparison group was confirmed by the authors’ response to a WWC query. Outcomes for this cohort are only available for ninth grade; tenth-grade follow-up outcomes are not available. Cohort 4: This cohort did not have a comparison group, and therefore, is ineligible for review.
No information was provided in the report about the intervention except its name and version: Scholastic READ 180 program, Stage C, Version 1.6.
No information was provided about the comparison condition.
Support for implementation was not described in the report.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Scholastic Research and Results. (2008). READ 180: Longitudinal evaluation of a ninth-grade reading intervention (2003–2006). New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.
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