READ 180 Universal
Study: Scholastic Research (2008); White & Haslam (2005a); White & Haslam (2005b)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Students were identified, and selected to participate in the study, based on their reading scores on the standardized tests SAT 9 in SY 2003-2004 and SY 2004-2005, and the TerraNova in SY 2004-2005, and SY 2005-2006. The district targeted students who were reading one or more grade levels below their assigned grade level to participate in the READ 180 program. Participating cohorts completed the following standardized tests throughout the study: • Cohort I Students (ninth graders 2003-2004): See Page 1-2, Report #1; See Page 3, Report #2 o SAT 9 Reading Comprehension Subtest, SY 2002-2003 and SY 2003-2004 • Cohort I, English Language Learners (ninth graders 2003-2004): See Page ii, vi, 13, and 14 Report #1; See Page 10, Report #2 o SAT 9 Reading Comprehension Subtest, SY 2003-2004 • Cohort I, English Language Learners Longitudinal Performance (2005): See Page 14, Report #1; See Page 11, Report #2 o AIMS Reading Test, 2005 • Cohort II Students (ninth graders 2004-2005): See Page 1-2, Report #1; See Page 3, Report #2 o SAT 9 Reading Comprehension Subtest, SY 2003-2004 o TerraNova Reading Test, SY 2004-2005 • Cohort II, English Language Learners Posttest Performance (2005): See Page 22, Report #1; See Page 12, Report #2 o Terra Nova Reading Test 2005 • Cohort II, English Language Learners Longitudinal Performance (2006): See Page 12, Report #2, See Page 8 and 9, Report #3 o AIMS Reading Test, 2006 • Cohort III Students (ninth graders 2005-2006) See Page 3, Report #2 o TerraNova Reading Test, SY 2004-2005 and SY 2005-2006 • Cohort III, English Language Learners (ninth graders 2005-2006): See Page 13, Report #2; See Page 3, Report #3 o TerraNova Reading Test 2006

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

Students were identified as “at risk” based on their SAT 9 Reading Comprehension Subtest score. Incoming ninth graders reading below a grade equivalent of 8.0, and incoming tenth graders reading below a grade level equivalent of 9.0 met the definition of “at risk.”

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:

READ 180 Stage C, Version 1.6, the comprehensive reading intervention program is considered the treatment condition, and the submitted program of this study.

Specify which condition is the control condition:

The control condition is the standard district-wide, or school-based business as usual reading program.

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.

Propensity matching was used to identify a subset of nonparticipants whose reading level and ELL eligibility were similar to participants in the READ 180 program. For Cohort 1 student’s eligibility for ELL services, and special education services was used; for Cohort 2 student’s matching was conducted using pre-test achievement scores, ELL, special education eligibility, gender and ethnicity.

What was the unit of assignment?

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?

Teachers received in-depth summer training, and continuous on-site support during the school year.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.

District administrators met with Scholastic consultants and support staff throughout the implementation to ensure the program was implemented with fidelity and integrity.

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

No fidelity data were provided.

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:

Researchers conducted several analyses for the study, including: 1) ANCOVA to estimate the effects of participation in READ 180, for Cohorts I and III, measuring the change in reading scores while controlling for students’ reading proficiency, using SAT 9 for Cohort I and TerraNova for Cohort III; 2) ANCOVA to measure the differences between Cohort II participants and non-participants in their average 9th grade TerraNova scores; and 3) a correlation analysis to measure relationship between students’ SRI scores and scores on SAT 9 Reading Comprehension Subtest.