Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up
May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H (2016). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593261
-
examining6,888Students, grade1
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Reading Recovery®)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Reading Words Scale Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
140.55 |
136.98 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Reading Words Scale Score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Rural schools;
|
141.00 |
137.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Reading Comprehension |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
139.80 |
135.92 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS): Reading Comprehension |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Rural schools;
|
139.70 |
136.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Total score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
495.37 |
451.88 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
138.71 |
135.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Total score |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Rural schools;
|
501.10 |
460.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Rural schools;
|
137.80 |
134.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
19% English language learners -
Female: 40%
Male: 60% -
Rural, Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest, Northeast
-
Race Black 13% Other or unknown 35% White 43% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 19% Not Hispanic or Latino 81%
Study Details
Setting
Schools that participated in the study were selected from a larger sample of schools participating in the i3 Scale-Up Reading Recovery study. All schools were located within the United States. The majority of schools were located in the Midwest and Northeastern United States. The majority of schools were also suburban with many of the schools having 20% or more of the students identified as English language learners.
Study sample
Students in the sample were 60% male, 40% female, and 19% English language learners. The sample included 13% Black students, 19% Hispanic, 43% White, and 25% other. 48% of the students had a text reading level of 0, 20% level 1, 20% level 2, and 13% level 3 or more. Characteristics by intervention and comparison groups were not reported separately.
Intervention Group
The Reading Recovery program is an intervention that targets struggling first grade students and aims to improve their literacy skills. This program is an intensive intervention that is delivered to struggling students through a 12 - to 20- week series of individual daily lessons that last 30 minutes each. Lessons are only provided by certified Reading Recovery-trained teachers. Teachers must complete an intensive, year long, graduate-level training course to become certified. The Reading Recovery program provides activities that are outlined and guided by the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States, 6th edition.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business as usual literacy instruction plus regular supplemental supports.
Support for implementation
Teachers must complete an intensive, year long, graduate-level training course to become certified to be a Recovery Reading teacher. The authors also collected implementation fidelity by: a) constructing a logic model which included all key components of the program, b) operationalizing the 51 program standards as measurable indicators of fidelity, c) defining a minimum threshold to assess implementation, d) collecting data on the indicators, and e) calculating adherence to the program's components.
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).