Vaughn, Sharon; Mathes, Patricia; Linan-Thompson, Sylvia; Cirino, Paul; Carlson, Coleen; Pollard-Durodola, Sharolyn; Cardenas-Hagan, Elsa; Francis, David (2006). Elementary School Journal, v107 n2 p153-181. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ750516
Reviewed: February 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.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 100% |
Reviewed: September 2006
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 Enhanced Proactive Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English Language Composite |
Enhanced Proactive Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
2.23 |
-0.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passage Comprehension |
Enhanced Proactive Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
22.82 |
4.88 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Letter sound identification |
Enhanced Proactive Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
9.53 |
6.64 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) |
Enhanced Proactive Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
20.49 |
17.75 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Enhanced Proactive Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
43.71 |
24.25 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 98% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 2% |
Four Texas schools with a large population of English language learners served as sites for the study. On average, 98% of the students were Hispanic and more than 80% (ranging from 85% to 100%) qualified for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Schools were located in large urban areas or on an urban border.
The study involved 41 first-grade Hispanic English language learners (50% female) from 14 classrooms. The students were randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison group. Participants were included in the study based on low English and Spanish reading achievement. All participants were prescreened to assess their English and Spanish reading and language ability. To be included in the study, students had to meet two inclusion criteria: scoring below the 25th percentile for first grade on the Letter Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery in both Spanish and English and reading between zero and one word from a list of five two- to four-letter words in English and Spanish.
The intervention group received Enhanced Proactive Reading. The curriculum was implemented as a supplemental reading program for these students. They were taught in small groups of three to five students from October to May, receiving a total of 120, 50-minute lessons. Checklists and observations were conducted and found that the intervention was delivered with acceptable fidelity.
The comparison group English language learners did not participate in the supplemental reading program but received the same core reading instruction as the intervention group. The study authors note that 14 of these students received one or more reading interventions, in addition to their core instruction, during the study. More specifically, comparison students received an average of 63.7 hours of supplemental instruction, but there was wide variability, with some receiving relatively few hours and others receiving well over 100 hours (compared with the 80 hours received by students in the intervention group)
Pre- and post-intervention assessments included measures of English language development and reading assessments in both English and Spanish. Only the English language measures are within the scope of this review, and the WWC did not consider Spanish outcomes when assessing the intervention. The reading measures included various subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson battery of assessments, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, and a measure of students’ ability to identify letters in the English alphabet and to provide at least one corresponding sound for each letter. The Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised served as the English language development measure (composite scores and some related subtests). (See Appendices A2.1 and A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Teachers received 12 hours of professional development training prior to implementation of the intervention and six additional hours six weeks after the start of the intervention. Teachers also participated in frequent staff development sessions and on-site coaching.
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.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182.
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
Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades Practice Guide