READ 180

Study: Hamilton, Meisch, Chen, Quintanilla, Fong, et al. (2011)

Hamilton, J., Meisch, A., Chen, E., Quintanilla, P., Fong, P., Gray-Adams, K., Petta, I., & Thornton, N. (2011). Striving Readers study: Targeted and whole school interventions – year 4. U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.
Descriptive Information Usage Acquisition and Cost Program Specifications and Requirements Training

READ 180 is a comprehensive system of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development to raise reading achievement of struggling readers.

READ 180 integrates principles of cognition and learning with practices for instructional effectiveness for older struggling readers.

The READ 180 instructional model facilitates a blended model of instruction with clear organization for the classroom.

READ 180 leverages adaptive technology to individualize instruction for students and provide powerful data for differentiation to teachers. Respectful of students of all ages, READ 180 is available in three Stages each with rigorous, age-appropriate content: Stage A (Grades 4—6), Stage B (Grades 6—8), and Stage C (Grades 9 and Up).

 

READ 180 is intended for use in grades four through high school. The program is designed for students with disabilities (particularly behavioral disabilities), English language learners, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic areas of focus are reading (including phonological awareness, phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and spelling) and handwriting (including spelling, sentence construction, and planning and revising).

READ 180 is currently used in all 50 states and in over 40,000 classrooms. There are over one million active students’ licenses currently being used every day.

 

Where to obtain:
Scholastic Inc.
557 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
Phone #: 877-234-READ
Website: http://www.hmhco.com/products/read-180

Cost: READ 180 pricing is determined by the number of students being served and number of classrooms set up. At the basic level, the cost is $43,000 for a Stage of READ 180 service of 60 student licenses. READ 180 can also be purchased for 30 students.

  • Initial cost per student for implementing program: Year 1: $716 per student (based on 60 students)
  • Replacement cost per student for subsequent use: Year 2 and Beyond: $29.95
  • Licenses are sold on a perpetual basis.
  • Volume discounts are available.

Included with Purchase of License:

  • Teacher Materials
  • Implementation Training
  • Leadership Materials
  • Leadership Training
  • Student Materials

 

READ 180 is designed for individual students and small groups. Class size for READ 180 should be 15-24 students, with three small groups of 5-8 students.

READ 180 takes 90 minutes per session with a recommended 5 sessions per week.

The program includes highly specified teacher manuals.

READ 180 is a blended instructional model, where a third of the class is on the computer during the small group rotations. Therefore, the number of computers depends on the number of students in the READ 180 classroom.

 

The program requires training for the instructor over the course of a few days. The teachers in READ 180 receive two full days of in-person training in order to implement the program.

Scholastic provides comprehensive professional development in person and online. Scholastic provides two-and-a-half days of in-person professional development with the purchase of a complete stage of READ 180.

  • Embedded professional development resources – a collection of professional development strategies is embedded within all of the teacher’s materials.
  • Additional resources exist for READ 180 teachers – Purchase of READ 180 includes a one-year subscription to the online course Best Practices in Reading Intervention.

The minimum qualifications of the instructor are that they are a professional, but the program does not assume the instructor has expertise in a given area.

Training manuals and materials are available by READ 180. The READ 180 training materials and teacher implementation guides are reviewed by Scholastic consultants and field-tested by consultants who work with teachers using READ 180 across the country.

Practitioners may obtain ongoing professional/technical support.

Additional Training Available:

  • Coordinator Training
  • Certified Support Specialist Training
  • In-Classroom Support
  • Scholastic Training Zone
  • Scholastic U

 

Participants: Convincing Evidence

Sample size: Analytic Group 1 (1 year exposure): 2,570 students (1,360 program, 1,210 control)
Analytic Group 2 (2 years exposure): 1,541 students (821 program, 720 control)
Analytic Group 3 (3 years exposure): 716 students (383 program, 333 control)

Risk Status: Students scoring below 1 standard deviation of the district norm on the reading subtest of the state assessment were identified as being at risk for academic failure. This criterion resulted in cutoff scores that ensured that all students were identified by the state as “partially proficient”, which is the lowest category possible on the state assessment.

Demographics:

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

905

53.7% 

782 

46.3% 

0.25 

  Grade 7

213 

47.5% 

235 

52.5% 

0.01* 

  Grade 8

232 

55.2% 

188 

44.7% 

0.28 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

740

51.2%

705

48.8%

0.06

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

576

54.2%

485

45.7%

0.22

  White

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

1,015

53.7%

877

46.4%

0.00*

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Identified with a disability

543

52.7%

486

47.2%

0.96

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

149

56.7%

114

43.4%

0.19

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

 

 

 

 

 

Male

786

53.1%

693

46.9%

0.70

The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Analytic Group 2 (2 years exposure)

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 905

53.7% 

782 

46.3% 

0.25 

  Grade 7

 213

47.5% 

235 

52.5% 

0.01* 

  Grade 8

 232

55.2% 

188 

44.7% 

0.28 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

740

51.2%

705

48.8%

0.06

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

576

54.2%

485

45.7%

0.22

  White

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

1,015

53.7%

877

46.4%

0.00*

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Identified with a disability

543

52.7%

486

47.2%

0.96

  Not identified with a disability

 

 

 

 

 

ELL status

  English language learner

149

56.7%

114

43.4%

0.19

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

 

 

 

 

 

Male

786

53.1%

693

46.9%

0.70

The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Analytic Group 3 (3 years exposure):

 

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

  Kindergarten

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 1

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 2

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 3

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 4

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 5

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 6

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 7

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 8

 385

54.1% 

327 

45.9% 

 

  Grade 9

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 10

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 11

 

 

 

 

 

  Grade 12

 

 

 

 

 

Race-ethnicity

  African-American

206

52.4%

187

47.9%

0.33

  American Indian

 

 

 

 

 

  Asian/Pacific Islander

 

 

 

 

 

  Hispanic

171

56.1%

134

43.9%

0.36

  White

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

Socioeconomic status

  Subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

  No subsidized lunch

 

 

 

 

 

Disability status

  Speech-language impairments

 

 

 

 

 

  Learning disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Behavior disorders

 

 

 

 

 

  Intellectual disabilities

 

 

 

 

 

  Other

 

 

 

 

 

  Not identified with a disability

473

55.4%

381

44.6%

 0.09

ELL status

  English language learner

34

65.4%

18

34.6%

0.09

  Not English language learner

 

 

 

 

 

Gender

Female

 

 

 

 

 

Male

218

56.6%

167

43.4%

0.14

* Since all participants are 8th grade students, SAS program is unable to generate chi square significant test. The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Training of Instructors: Teachers were provided with training on the use of the curriculum. In addition, teachers received ongoing coaching and feedback, related to fidelity and quality of implementation, by trained district resource teacher coordinators.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Yes.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Was there attrition bias1 ?: No.

Did the unit of analysis match the unit for random assignment (for randomized studies) or the assignment strategy (for quasi-experiments)?: Yes.

1 NCII follows guidance from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) in determining attrition bias. The WWC model for determining bias based on a combination of differential and overall attrition rates can be found on pages 13-14 of this document: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf

 

Fidelity of Implementation: Unconvincing Evidence

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained:  No classroom observations were conducted. Extant data were used to measure fidelity of implementation. Four components were measured: (1) teacher attendance at training, (2) class size, (3) the frequency of ongoing assessment (number of SRI administrations), and (4) the duration and frequency of use of the instructional software. Data for the first two components were obtained from district records. Data for the last two components were obtained from software usage reports. Because these data were extant, the calculation of inter-rater reliability is impossible (i.e. multiple raters were not used). Moreover the use of extant data provides objective and reliable indicators of fidelity.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Each treatment classroom (n=21) receives a fidelity rating for each of the four components described above. The fidelity ratings range from 1 (low fidelity) to 4 (high fidelity). These components are then combined into an overall school-level fidelity score. Data for each fidelity component is provided below.

  1. Teacher attendance at training- 40% of new teachers in year 4 were categorized as having ‘full participation’. The remaining 60% of teachers had ‘moderate participation’ (Note: there are only 3 categories for fidelity in this component due to the maximum number of training days)
  2. 100% of treatment classrooms had fewer than 21 students, resulting in a fidelity level of ‘high’ for this component for all classrooms.
  3. 100% of treatment classrooms administered a minimum of 3 SRI assessments during year 4, resulting in a fidelity level of ‘high’ in this component for all classrooms.
  4. The duration of use of instructional software has two sub-components; the number of sessions per week, and the duration (in minutes) of each session. Software must be used a minimum of three times a week for 15 minutes each time for a classroom to receive a ‘high’ fidelity rating. 71% of classrooms received a ‘low’ rating for this component. 19% received a ‘low-to-moderate’ rating. 1% received a ‘moderate-to-high’ rating. No classroom received a ‘high’ fidelity rating.

For the school-level overall fidelity scores, 40% of schools received a ‘high’ rating and the rest received ‘moderate-to-high’.

Measures Targeted: Data Unavailable

Measures Broader: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

Not applicable

 

 

 
Broader Measure Score type & range of measure Reliability statistics Relevance to program instructional content

SAT-10

Scale scores
Range: 100 - 787

KR-20 = 0.89
This assessment was standardized using a nation-wide representative sample of students in 2002

The program targets the skills measured by the vocabulary, reading comprehension, and language arts (mechanics, language expression) subtests.

If you have excluded a variable on data are reported in the attached document, explain rationale for exclusion: School attendance was originally an outcome, but was dropped because it is unlikely to be affected by the treatment program.

Number of Outcome Measures: 9 Reading

Mean ES - Targeted: Data Unavailable

Mean ES - Broader: 0.07*

Effect Size:

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not applicable  

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest 0.05
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest 0.05
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest 0.03
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest 0.06
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest 0.14**
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest 0.08
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest 0.02
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest 0.10
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest 0.11

 

Key
*        p ≤ 0.05
**      p ≤ 0.01
***    p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Visual Analysis (Single Subject Design): N/A

Disaggregated Data for Demographic Subgroups: Yes

Targeted Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
  Not applicable  

Broader Measures

Construct Measure Effect Size
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Female 0.04
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– Female 0.07
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– Female 0.08
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest - Male 0.07
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest- Male 0.04
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest- Male 0.01
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – African America 0.04
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– African America 0.09
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– African America 0.07
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Hispanic 0.09
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Hispanic 0.04
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Hispanic  -0.01
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Special Education 0.13*
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Special Education 0.05
Reading Analytic group 1 (1 year exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Special Education 0.05
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Female 0.03
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– Female 0.04
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– Female 0.06
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest - Male 0.10
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest- Male 0.21**
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest- Male 0.10
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – African America 0.05
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– African America 0.16*
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– African America 0.09
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Hispanic 0.18*
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Hispanic 0.07
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Hispanic  0.13
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Special Education 0.08
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Special Education 0.22**
Reading Analytic group 2 (2 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Special Education 0.07
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Female 0.11
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– Female -0.02
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– Female 0.15
Reading alytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Male -0.01
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest- Male 0.15
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest- Male 0.09
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – African America 0.10
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest– African America 0.21*
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest– African America 0.11
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Hispanic -0.17
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Hispanic -0.02
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Hispanic  0.12
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Vocabulary subtest – Special Education 0.02
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Comprehension subtest – Special Education 0.21
Reading Analytic group 3 (3 years exposure): SAT-10: Language Arts subtest – Special Education 0.26*

 

Key
*        p ≤ 0.05
**      p ≤ 0.01
***    p ≤ 0.001
–      Developer was unable to provide necessary data for NCII to calculate effect sizes
u      Effect size is based on unadjusted means
†      Effect size based on unadjusted means not reported due to lack of pretest group equivalency, and effect size based on adjusted means is not available

 

Disaggregated Data for <20th Percentile: No

Administration Group Size: Individual, Small Group

Duration of Intervention: 90 minutes, 5 times a week, up to 3 years

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Professional, 2 days of in-person training in order to implement the program

Reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA: WWC & E-ESSA

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Adolescent Literacy Evidence Protocol

Effectiveness: READ 180 was found to have potentially positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement for adolescent learners.

Studies Reviewed: 9 studies meet standards out of 39 studies total

Full Report

Students with Learning Disabilities Evidence Protocol

Effectiveness: No studies of READ 180® that fall within the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of READ 180® on students with learning disabilities.

Studies Reviewed: N/A

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: Five studies of READ 180 met inclusion standards. Two of these had statistically significant positive effects in comparison to control groups, qualifying READ 180 for the ESSA “Strong” category. These were studies in Western Massachusetts (effect size =+0.18) and Milwaukee (effect size =+0.14). A Florida study found positive outcomes for students at moderate risk, but negative effects for students at high risk, with an average effect size of +0.12. Studies in Newark (NJ) and Memphis found no differences. The average effect size across all studies was a modest +0.08.

Number of Studies: 5

Average Effect Size: 0.08

Full Report

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 5 studies

Interactive Inc. (2002). An efficacy study of READ 180, a print and electronic adaptive intervention program, grades 4 and above. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
 

Scholastic Research. (2008). Desert Sands Unified School District, CA. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
 

White, R. N., Haslam, M. B., & Hewes, G. M. (2006). Improving student literacy: READ 180 in the Phoenix Union High School District, 2003–04 and 2004–05. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
 

White, R. N., Williams, I. J., & Haslam, M. B. (2005). Performance of District 23 students participating in Scholastic READ 180. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
 

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.