Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Otaiba, S. A., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., . . . O’Connor, R. E. (2001). Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251–267. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638740
-
examining269Students, gradeK
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2023
- Publication (findings for Phonological awareness training—Fuchs et al. (2001))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Phonological awareness training—Fuchs et al. (2001) vs. Ladders to Literacy |
20 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
4.98 |
3.67 |
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.
-
4% English language learners -
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Urban
-
- 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
Tennessee
-
Race Black 39% Other or unknown 9% White 52%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in schools in the Metro-Nashville Public Schools system. The interventions and control conditions were all based on in-class instruction to the whole class.
Intervention Group
LADDERS + PALS INTERVENTION (1) For the "Ladders + PALS" intervention, the Ladders activities were conducted in the same manner and for the same amount of time. (2) The "PALS" sessions were conducted by teachers three times a week for 16 weeks and each session lasted for about 20 minutes. (3) In these sessions, students were grouped in pairs and took turns "as reader (tutee) and coach (tutor)" while completing two activities: "What Sound?" and "What Word?" (page 254). (4) The What Sound? activity is designed to help students correct sounds of all 26 letters (except x). (5) The What Word? activity is designed so that students are corrected on words they read aloud. (6) For both these PALS activities, the coaches have a scripted text to use for testing the readers. (7) The teachers in the Ladders + PALS intervention are asked to complete a PALS teacher questionnaire which has them evaluate the effectiveness of PALS. (8) There is no mention of a home component for this intervention.
Comparison Group
LADDERS INTERVENTION (1) For the "Ladders" intervention, 15 Ladders activities were chosen from the Ladders-To-Literacy workbook (O'Connor et al. 1998). (2) The classroom teachers implemented these activities to the whole class, and each activity required 5-15 minutes each day. (3) This intervention was conducted for an average of 45 minutes each week (usually 15 minutes 3 days a week) for 20 weeks. (4) This time devoted to Ladders was about 10% of the standard reading/language arts time. (5) 10 of the 15 activities focused on "word and syllable awareness, rhyming, first-sound isolation, onset-rime-level blending, and sound segmentation" (page 254). (6) The remaining 5 activities (out of 15) were "journal writing, letter sound of the week, morning message, nursery rhymes and poems, and shared storybook reading" (page 254). (7) There is no mention of a home component, the intervention being "scripted," or formative assessment.
Support for implementation
The teachers attended a full-day workshop to get trained on the Ladders intervention. The Ladders + PALS intervention teachers attended an additional half-day workshop on PALS. The 4 staff members involved with testing and assistance were told about the importance of showing no bias towards a particular intervention (because they knew the children's assignment conditions while testing the students). In other words, they were educated on "experimenter bias" by the researchers (page 258).
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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.Phonological Awareness Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2012
- 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 Phonological Awareness Training.
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.Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Intervention Report - Adolescent Literacy
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2012
- 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 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies.
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.Ladders to Literacy Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2007
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Ladders to Literacy.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rapid letter sound |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
16.99 |
15.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergarten;
|
3.32 |
2.03 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Identification subtest |
Ladders to Literacy vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Kindergaten;
|
7.12 |
5.47 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
Urban
-
- 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
Tennessee
-
Race Black 39% Other or unknown 8% White 51%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four Title I and four non-Title I schools in the Nashville public school system.
Study sample
Thirty-three teachers were stratified and then randomly assigned to three conditions: Ladders to Literacy, Ladders to Literacy plus Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), and a comparison condition. Students were selected to participate based on the Rapid Letter Naming test and student names were presented to teachers for their review and adjustment. For rating purposes, the WWC focused on the 11 teachers with 136 students that were in the Ladders to Literacy treatment group and 11 teachers with 135 students that were in the comparison group. Students in both conditions were also compared longitudinally and in terms of varying levels of reading performance (high, medium, and low) in fall of first grade.
Intervention Group
Children in the intervention classes received their typical pre-reading instruction and were given 15 Ladders to Literacy activities for a maximum of 45 minutes a week for twenty weeks. These activities included word and syllable awareness, rhyming, first sound isolation, onset-rhyme blending, sound segmentation, journal writing, “letter sound of the week,” “morning message,” nursery rhymes and poems, and shared storybook reading. Only three of the activities presented students with printed letters. Students in the Ladders to Literacy plus PALS classes participated in a 20-week phonological awareness training and beginning decoding curriculum. The PALS component, which was implemented for 16 weeks, required children to work in pairs with peers of their own ages. The PALS activities focused on the correct sounds of letters and required children to read aloud sight words, decodable words, and simple sentences.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison classes received their regular whole-class reading instruction. Nearly two-thirds of teachers used the school district’s formally adopted text: the Harcourt-Brace Treasury of Literature: First Street Collection for Kindergarten. A majority of the teachers used First Street’s Big Books, and about half of the teachers reported using High Hat. A majority of comparison teachers taught alphabet letter naming.
Outcome descriptions
For both pretest and posttest, the authors administered two subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery test (Word Identification and Word Attack), a rapid letter sound test, and a segmentation task. At posttest, the authors also administered a blending task. All these tests were also used during follow-up testing which occurred in the fall of first grade. The Spelling subtest of the Wechsler Individual Achievement test was also used in the study but is not included because it is outside the scope of this Beginning Reading review. (See Appendix A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers attended a full-day workshop that included discussion of phonological awareness tasks and description of the 15 Ladders to Literacy activities that teachers were asked to implement. Ladders to Literacy and PALS teachers attended an additional half-day workshop to prepare their students in PALS.
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).