White, R., Williams, I., & Haslam, M. B. (2005). Policy Studies Associates. https://www.policystudies.com/s/District-23-READ-180-Report.pdf.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts: Grade 8 |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 8 proficiency level 2;
|
689.00 |
686.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test: Grade 6 |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 6 proficiency level 2;
|
642.00 |
639.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 85% | |
| Other or unknown | 15% |
| Hispanic | 15% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 85% |
The study took place in 16 schools within New York City’s District 23 in Brooklyn.
The sample characteristics were provided for the entire sample of students across grade levels and proficiency levels. The proficiency levels created by New York City school officials range from 1 (Below Basic) to 4 (Advanced). These data included students in Levels 3 (Proficient) and 4 (Advanced), which are outside the scope of this protocol; however, the authors did not provide data on just the students included in this review. The majority of the sample was Black (85%) and 15% were Hispanic, while 15% did not specify. Forty-eight percent of the sample was male, 52% of the sample was female, 3% were English language learners, and 90% of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch.
The study examined the effectiveness of a reading intervention for students struggling with reading. The intervention condition involved the implementation of READ 180 over the course of the 2001-2002 school year. READ 180 is a program designed to improve the skills of students in fourth to twelfth grades who are struggling with reading.
The comparison condition received the schools' usual reading instruction.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 8 Lvl 2;
|
689.00 |
686.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6 Lvl 2;
|
642.00 |
639.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 86% |
| Hispanic | 27% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 73% |
The study took place in 16 schools in New York City’s District 23 in Brooklyn.
Students receiving READ 180® instruction in the 16 participating schools were compared to students within the same schools who had never participated in READ 180®. The full sample of 617 READ 180® students and 4,619 students in the comparison group had similar percentages of African-American students (86% intervention, 84% comparison), Hispanic students (14% intervention, 15% comparison), female students (54% intervention, 51% comparison), students eligible for special education (6% intervention, 11% comparison), and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (91% intervention, 90% comparison). Both groups had the same percentages of students who were eligible for EL services (3%) and who were recent immigrants (3%). Main analysis samples were excluded from review because either they were not eligible or they did not meet WWC group design standards. For example, there were no intervention students in the grade 7 analysis sample; therefore, grade 7 students were excluded from this review. Moreover, results of an author query revealed that the samples of students in grades 4, 5, 6, and 8 did not establish baseline equivalence on the analytic sample, either combined or separately by grade. This review is based on the analytic sample which consists of three subgroups of students that were found to be equivalent at baseline: • Grade 6, proficiency level 2 [Basic]: This subgroup consisted of 64 students in the intervention group and 407 in the comparison group. • Grade 8, proficiency level 2 [Basic]: This subgroup consisted of 47 students in the intervention group and 378 in the comparison group. • Grade 8, proficiency level 3 [Proficient]: This subgroup consisted of 10 students in the intervention group and 191 in the comparison.
The intervention group received READ 180® during the 2001–02 school year.
The comparison group received business-as-usual instruction in the same schools that served the intervention group during the 2001–02 school year.
Support for implementation was not described in the report.
Reviewed: October 2009
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8: Proficiency level 3;
|
717.90 |
707.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6: Proficiency level 3;
|
674.10 |
667.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Proficiency level 2;
|
637.60 |
633.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8: Proficiency level 2;
|
689.00 |
686.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6: Proficiency level 2;
|
624.10 |
639.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Proficienty level 1;
|
606.80 |
609.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 4: Proficiency level 3;
|
665.00 |
671.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
New York State Department of Education End-Of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA) |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 8: Proficienty level 1;
|
664.90 |
667.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test |
READ 180® vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 6: Proficienty level 1;
|
606.70 |
619.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 84% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% |
| Hispanic | 15% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 85% |
The study was conducted in 16 public schools in central Brooklyn in New York City.
The authors compared English Language Arts test outcomes for READ 180 students in 16 schools to outcomes of their peers attending the same schools who did not participate in READ 180. For the overall sample of students in grades 4–8, the profile of the students selected to participate in READ 180 was similar to that of comparison students. About 85% of students were African-American, and 90% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. READ 180 students were somewhat less likely to be eligible for special-education services than nonparticipating students (6% versus 11%). For grades 4, 6, and 8, the students in the two groups were similar on the reading pretest. The analysis sample consisted of 362 students in the READ 180 group and 2,528 students in the comparison group across grades 4, 6, and 8. Comparisons were made between students with the same proficiency levels (1, 2, and 3) within each grade.
The intervention group received READ 180 during the 2001–02 academic year. The study reported students’ outcomes after one year of program implementation.
The comparison group received the standard instruction provided in the regular school curriculum.
For the pretest, students took a reading test developed by CTB/McGraw-Hill for the city of New York. This CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test produces scores that can be aligned with and compared to the New York State Department of Education End-of-Year Tests. For the posttest, students in grades 4 and 8 took the New York State Department of Education End-of-Year Test in English Language Arts (NYSDE/ELA), and students in grade 6 took the CTB/McGraw-Hill Reading Test developed for the city of New York. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.1.
No information on training for teachers or staff was provided in this study.
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