Slattery, C. A. (2003). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3103754).
Reviewed: September 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
16.50 |
10.93 |
Yes |
-- |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Qualitative Reading Inventory II (QRI-II) |
Fast ForWord® vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
3.97 |
2.87 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The location for this study was Freemansburg Elementary School in the Bethlehem Area School District of Pennsylvania. There are 348 students in the Kindergarten through 5th grade school. The population of the school is diverse with sixty-one percent receiving free or reduced lunch. This school district is considered at-risk based on the percentage of free/reduced lunch and the high impact of Limited English Proficiency students. There are 182 students in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades, of which 62 students were reading below grade level.
In the intervention group, four students had both a special education identification of specific learning disability as well as a speech-language impairment. Ten of the students also had a full program of Reading Recovery in first grade. Twenty of these students attended preschool. In the comparison group, three students had both a special education identification of specific learning disability as well as a speech-language impairment. Three students had a special education identification of just specific learning disability. Twenty of the students also had a full program of Reading Recovery in first grade. Nineteen of these students attended preschool.
The Fast ForWord intervention is a computer-based learning after school program. Fast ForWord was administered for 100 minutes each day, five days a week, for six weeks, with no interruption of classroom instruction. Three separate treatment sessions were administered - one for Fall, Spring, and the following year. The students used ten iBook notebook computers, headphones, and mice provided by the school. Two qualified coaches were present every day to keep the intervention students on track. The Fast ForWord program consisted of seven 20-minute training exercises. Three were sound exercises that contained complex auditory information, while four were word exercises designed to improve vocabulary and context of vocabulary in sentences. Five of the seven exercises were systematically alternated each day.
While there are no details given for the comparison condition, the study does indicate that a balanced approach is used in all classrooms.
No support for implementation was provided in the report.
Reviewed: March 2013
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 Fast ForWord®.
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.
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading abilities by students in the Bethlehem Area School District in Pennsylvania who used the Fast ForWord® Language product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(3), 1–4.
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Fast ForWord users in the Bethlehem area SD outperform a comparison group: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.scilearn.com
Reviewed: August 2010
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 Fast ForWord®.
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.
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading abilities by students in the Bethlehem Area School District in Pennsylvania who used the Fast ForWord® Language product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(3), 1–4.
Reviewed: July 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.
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
Structuring Out-of-School Time to Improve Academic Achievement Practice Guide