Stepping Stones to Literacy
Study: Nelson, Stage, Epstein, & Pierce (2005)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

A total of 63 children were selected from 27 kindergarten classrooms in 10 elementary schools located in the Midwest. Parental informed consent was obtained in all cases, A smaller sample of 20 students were selected for the non-specific treatment condition.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):

A three-step screening process was used to identify participants. The first two steps included the first and second gates of the Early Screening Project (ESP) to identify students at risk for ED. The remaining step involved the administration of DIBELS Letter Naming (LNF) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) probes to identify children at risk for reading problems. Additional information from the lead author, Nelson, includes: The norm referenced measure linked directly with the intervention is the CTOPP PA. The treatment group (entire sample) pre-test average on the CTOPP PA is equal to the 19th (standard score at pre-test = 90) percentile.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Specify which condition is the submitted intervention:

The experimental condition received Stepping Stones to Literacy in addition to the kindergarten core literacy program.

Specify which condition is the control condition:

Children in the non-specific treatment, or comparison, condition received the kindergarten literacy instruction provided in the classroom. No attempt was made to change any of the early literacy instructional activities provided to children by teachers in this condition.

If you have a third, competing condition, in addition to your control and intervention condition, identify what the competing condition is (data from this competing condition will not be used):

Using the tables that follow, provide data demonstrating comparability of the program group and control group in terms of demographics.

Grade Level

Race–Ethnicity

Socioeconomic Status

Disability Status

ELL Status

Gender

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?

Random

Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.

A pre- and posttreatment and nonspecific treatment group quasi-experimental design was used to assess the effects of Stepping Stones to Literacy on the literacy skills and social behavior of kindergarten children at risk for BD and reading difficulties. Students in the treatment and non-specific treatment conditions were equated on preintervention literacy and social behavior levels as measured by the ESP Critical Events Index, Adaptive and Maladaptive scales. See the Design and Conditions section on page 32 in the attached article for more detail; also see the Participants section on page 31, second paragraph.

What was the unit of assignment?

Students

If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit of assignment:

What unit(s) were used for primary data analysis?

Schools
Teachers
Students
Classes
Other
If other, please specify:

Please describe the unit(s) used for primary data analysis:

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?

Stepping Stones instruction was provided by trained paraprofessional level tutors. First, tutors were provided the theory and rationale for Stepping Stones. Second, each of the instructional activities were described and modeled for the tutors. Third, tutors then practiced each of the instructional activities with each other. Tutors were provided corrective feedback while they were practicing the instructional activities. Fourth, tutors were observed delivering three complete lessons selected randomly. Finally, following training, tutors were observed and provided corrective feedback if necessary while tutoring children the first five lessons.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

Tutor self-evaluations and direct observations were used to assess treatment fidelity. The self evaluation measures consisted of 17 items associated with three stages of the implementation of Stepping Stones to Literacy. Self-evaluations were completed during the implementation. Direct observations assessed the implementation of the main program components. Two trained observers conducted the random observations of each tutor seven times. Inter-observer agreement which was conducted on 35% of the sessions was 100%.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?

Tutor-reported overall mean percentage of Stepping Stones intervention program components implemented correctly was 96% (SD= 2.87). Independent observations were conducted randomly on a total of 62 tutoring sessions. The percentage of intervention program components implemented correctly was 98% (SD=0.72).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

No

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences, please describe the extent to which these differences are related to the impact of the treatment. For example, if analyses were conducted to determine that outcomes from this study are due to the intervention and not pretest characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Please explain any missing data or instances of measures with incomplete pre- or post-test data.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

Describe the analyses used to determine whether the intervention produced changes in student outcomes:

Mean changes in the experimental and comparison group’s phonological awareness, word reading, and rapid naming measures were analyzed in Group (Experimental, Comparison) X Gender (Female, Male) X Change (Pre-intervention, post-intervention) Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) with the latter variable being a within-subject factor. Bonferonni corrections were used to set the significance level. Within one exception (CTOPP RN), a significant Group X Change interaction effect was obtained in all cases. Gender by change interaction effects were not significant. Mean changes in the experimental and comparison group’s classroom competence, emotional and behavioral self-control, and self-confidence measures were analyzed in Group (Experimental, Comparison) X Gender (Female, Male) X Change (Pre-intervention, post-intervention) Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) with the latter variable being a within-subject factor. Bonferonni corrections were used to set the significance level. No significant Group X Change interaction effects were obtained on the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale. Gender by change interaction effects were also not significant.