Fast ForWord Language Series
Study: Scientific Learning Corporation (2004)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The children in the experimental group were identified by licensed speech language pathologists as having a significant learning problem – many had multiple learning problems. The children in the comparison group were matched by gender, age, and performance on the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock Johnson-Revised.

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

The students were at risk because licensed speech language pathologists had identified them as having significant learning problems.

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 treatment group used the Fast ForWord Language Series (specifically, the Fast ForWord Language to Reading Product.)

Specify which condition is the control condition:

The comparison group did not receive any additional assistance outside of “business as usual”.

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?

Systematic

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

A matched design was used with the comparison group matched by gender, age, and pre-test score on the Letter-Word Identification of the Woodcock Johnson-Revised.

What was the unit of assignment?

Other

If other, please specify:

Random Assignment was not used

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?

Educators were trained in current and established findings on the neuroscience of how phonemic awareness and the acoustic properties of speech impact rapid development of language and reading skills; the scientific background validating the efficacy of the products; methods for assessment of candidates for participation; the selection of appropriate measures for testing and evaluation; effective implementation techniques; approaches for monitoring student performance; and techniques for measuring the gains students have achieved after they have finished using the product

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

The Fast ForWord Language to Reading software records student attendance and time-on-task and compares it to the protocol selected (5 days a week, 90 minutes a day).

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

While using the Fast ForWord Language to Reading software, students had 84% participation. The participation showed how much time students spent on task relative to the protocol. Overall, students used the software 84% of the time they were scheduled to use it. (Scheduled is a combination of sessions per week [five scheduled] and duration of each session [90 minutes scheduled]).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

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:

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether there was a difference between the improvement of the experimental group, and the improvement of the comparison group. 21 students in each group had pre- and post-test scores from both assessments. The MANOVA showed that there was a main effect of time, and a time by group interaction with (F(40)=18.5; p<0.01).