
A Control-Group Comparison of Two Reading Fluency Programs: The Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS) Program and the Great Leaps K-2 Reading Program [HELPS vs. business as usual]
Begeny, John C.; Laugle, Kelly M.; Krouse, Hailey E.; Lynn, Amy E.; Tayrose, Michelle P.; Stage, Scott A. (2010). School Psychology Review, v39 n1 p137-155 2010. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ886416
-
examining45Students, grade2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Fluency |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
11.55 |
9.30 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gray Oral Reading Test-Comprehension |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
12.41 |
9.70 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
104.88 |
98.00 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
105.02 |
98.20 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock Johnson - Word Attack |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
108.75 |
103.30 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock Johnson - Letter-Word Identification |
Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)—Begeny et al. (2010) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - HELPS vs. control;
|
105.99 |
102.30 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Male: 60% -
- 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
South
-
Race Asian 2% Black 24% Other or unknown 9% White 56% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one public elementary school in the southeast United States. Students who received Great Leaps or HELPS were removed from their class during morning language arts instruction. Great Leaps and HELPS were implemented one-on-one between the tutor and the student in a quiet hallway outside the students' classroom.
Study sample
Students were aged 7.2 to 9.9 years, with an average age of 7.9. 60.3% were male. 55.9% were White, 23.5% Black, 10.3% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, and 8.8% were identified as "Other Ethnicity." 33% received free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
"HELPS was developed by the authors for the purposes of this study. This program includes 88 instructional passage that have a range in difficulty from early first grade to the end of fourth grade. Passages were ordered by level of difficulty after Spache readability was assessed for all 88 passages. Students in the HELPS group received the intervention on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from February through April. Students in the HELP group averaged 27.1 sessions over the course of the study. Each instructional session lasted about 8-10 minutes. Students who received HELPS were removed from their class during morning language arts instruction. HELPS was implemented one-on-one between the tutor and the student in a quiet hallway outside the students' classroom."
Comparison Group
Students in the control group received their typical classroom language arts instruction.
Support for implementation
Twenty-two tutors implemented the interventions. Seventeen were undergraduate psychology majors, 4 were school psychology graduate students, and one was the first author. All tutors were trained on relevant procedural roles prior to implementing the intervention. They were also required to reach master criterion on the outcome measures according to an implementation protocol. Tutors were given training materials to guide their implementation of HELPS. They received a step by step description of the program, scripted procedural protocols to read, a form to track progress and facilitate communication between tutors and tutees, and copies of the instructional passages so student performance could be scored. There is no mention of additional instructional materials for the tutors implementing Great Leaps.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Great Leaps)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Great Leaps vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - GL vs. control;
|
105.03 |
98.20 |
No |
-- | |
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Great Leaps vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - GL vs. control;
|
100.98 |
98.00 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock Johnson - Word Attack |
Great Leaps vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - GL vs. control;
|
105.55 |
103.30 |
No |
-- | |
Woodcock Johnson - Letter-Word Identification |
Great Leaps vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample - GL vs. control;
|
102.82 |
102.30 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Male: 60% -
- 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
South
-
Race Asian 2% Black 24% Other or unknown 9% White 56% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in one public elementary school in the southeast United States. Students who received Great Leaps or HELPS were removed from their class during morning language arts instruction. Great Leaps and HELPS were implemented one-on-one between the tutor and the student in a quiet hallway outside the students' classroom.
Study sample
Students were aged 7.2 to 9.9 years, with an average age of 7.9. 60.3% were male. 55.9% were White, 23.5% Black, 10.3% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, and 8.8% were identified as "Other Ethnicity." 33% received free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
"Great Leaps is a branded intervention for emergent readers (not a remedial program). The program includes a series of reading probes in Letter Recognition and Phonics; High Frequency Words and Phrases; and Stories. The Phonics reading probes have a letter naming activity followed by activities that include letter sounds, letter combinations, words, prefixes, and suffixes. There are 44-60 items included in each activity. The purpose of the High Frequency Words and Phrases probes is to teach students decodable words, then irregular words, then 2-4 word phrases. In these probes there are typically 48-60 words per page. The Stories probes is a collection of 48 stories that increase in difficulty. The number of words increases from the easiest probes to the most difficult probes. Students in the Great Leaps group received the intervention on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from February through April. Students in the Great Leaps group averaged 26.6 sessions over the course of the study. Each instructional session lasted about 8-10 minutes. Students who received Great Leaps were removed from their class during morning language arts instruction. Great Leaps was implemented one-on-one between the tutor and the student in a quiet hallway outside the students' classroom."
Comparison Group
Students in the control group received their typical classroom language arts instruction.
Support for implementation
Twenty-two tutors implemented the interventions. Seventeen were undergraduate psychology majors, 4 were school psychology graduate students, and one was the first author. All tutors were trained on relevant procedural roles prior to implementing the intervention. They were also required to reach master criterion on the outcome measures according to an implementation protocol. Tutors were given training materials to guide their implementation of HELPS. They received a step by step description of the program, scripted procedural protocols to read, a form to track progress and facilitate communication between tutors and tutees, and copies of the instructional passages so student performance could be scored. There is no mention of additional instructional materials for the tutors implementing Great Leaps.
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- 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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Read Naturally Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2013
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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 Naturally.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).