Reading Recovery
Study: May et al. (2016)

Summary

Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention of daily one-to-one lessons that supplement good classroom teaching for the lowest-achieving first graders. The goal is to dramatically reduce the number of first- grade children with extreme difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. The lowest literacy achievers in Grade 1 receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12-20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. Daily and weekly records provide rich information for progress monitoring. As soon as children meet grade-level expectations and can continue to learn in the classroom, their lessons are discontinued, and new students begin individual instruction. Just as in the intent of RTI, two positive outcomes are possible: (a) responding to the intervention by meeting grade-level literacy expectations (approximately 75% of the children with complete interventions) and (b) recommended for further evaluation and future support. The intent of Reading Recovery lessons is to promote accelerated learning so that students can catch up with their peers and benefit from classroom instruction without supplemental help. Each lesson is individually designed and individually delivered by specially trained teachers and includes reading familiar books, reading yesterday’s new book while the teacher takes a running record, working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters, composing a written message, assembling a cut-up story, and reading a new book. Extensive training is required for the responsive, contingent teaching in Reading Recovery. Three levels of training form a network of expertise and support: (a) university-based trainers of teacher leaders; (b) site-based teacher leaders who train teachers; and (c) school-based teachers who deliver the intervention on their campuses. Reading Recovery is an intervention with internal and external cohesion to ensure fidelity of implementation, including • a published set of standards and guidelines for teaching, implementing, and evaluating the intervention; • a royalty-free trademark license; • an annual registry completed by each Reading Recovery site that verifies compliance with standards; • intensive year-long training for all levels of Reading Recovery professionals followed by ongoing professional development and support from teacher leaders and university trainers; • a standard lesson format within which teachers make decisions about each child; • annual evaluation of outcomes for every child in Reading Recovery by the International Data Evaluation Center; and • analysis of outcome and process data by university trainers who work with sites to ensure fidelity to the design of the implementation.

Target Grades:
1
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Phonological awareness
  • Phonological awareness
  • Phonics/word study
  • Comprehension
  • Fluency
  • Vocabulary
  • Spelling
  • Sentence construction
  • Other:
Where to Obtain:
Marie M. Clay / Heinemann
500 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 250 Worthington, Ohio 43085-5218
614-310-7323
www.readingrecovery.org
Initial Cost:
$2,807.00 per teacher
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

Costs are considered at the school, site/district, or teacher level. Initial per teacher costs for a new implementation in a school would include the cost of the year-long training (costs vary according to universities granting credit), the initial purchase of non-consumable children’s books to be used with students (about $2,500), professional books, materials, and supplies (approximately $250), and data processing fees (about $57). Because costs of tuition and non-consumable books are a one-time cost, initial costs of implementing Reading Recovery can be amortized across several years. The one-time district or site cost of constructing a training facility with a one-way glass/mirror if one is not available can also be amortized over many years. The cost of Reading Recovery per trained teacher is dramatically reduced after the first year. The only replacement costs are optional additions to the non-consumable set of books used with children and possible non-consumable professional books for teachers. Expenditures to the district/site include ongoing professional development, data processing fees, university affiliation fees if applicable, and miscellaneous supplies. The basic pricing structure is generally at a district/site level. The primary expenditures are related to initial and ongoing professional development for teachers (e.g., one-time cost of constructing a training facility if one is not available, university tuition and fees for teachers-in-training, professional books and materials). Books used with children are non-consumable and represent a one-time expenditure with annual replacements as needed. Annual data processing fees vary according to the size of the district/site, and university affiliation fees vary according to the university. Included in the published materials for teachers: Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals includes teaching procedures and theoretical explanations of when and why a teacher would select particular procedures for particular children. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement includes screening tasks, norms, and information about reliability and validity. Not included but required: Initial training costs include university credit and fees for an academic year and the services of a registered teacher leader, access to a training facility with a one-way mirror, non-consumable books for use with children, non-consumable books for teachers. In subsequent years costs include ongoing professional development, data processing fees, university affiliation fees, optional new or replacement books for use with children, etc.

Staff Qualified to Administer Include:
  • Special Education Teacher
  • General Education Teacher
  • Reading Specialist
  • Math Specialist
  • EL Specialist
  • Interventionist
  • Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
Training Requirements:
An academic year of training with university credit

For an academic year, teachers meet weekly with a registered Reading Recovery teacher leader who has completed a full year of training at a university training center to prepare for training teachers. While in training, teachers are also working with Reading Recovery students. Teachers learn to observe and discuss lessons behind a one-way mirror/glass. Course content for teacher classes focuses on the teachers’ ability to: • carefully observe and articulate children’s literacy behaviors; • select and use appropriate teaching procedures for each child; • design a series of daily lessons to meet the needs of each individual child; • critically evaluate their teaching decisions and those of their peers; • build a sound understanding of theoretical principles of reading and writing with attention to difficulties with literacy learning; • implement the intervention within the comprehensive literacy plan of the school; and • assess, monitor, and report the individual progress of each child in the intervention. Concurrent with the training, these teachers work with children in one-to-one lessons for part of the school day. Teacher leaders also make school visits and support implementation in schools. Teachers continue learning through scheduled professional development sessions in subsequent years. The key to Reading Recovery success lies with teacher expertise and decision making.


An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, 2nd Edition (Clay, 2002, 2006) is currently used for screening for literacy difficulties and assessing change over time. The observation tasks were developed over a number of years (1963-1978) and subsequently revised. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1972) was followed by the first edition of the Observation Survey in 1993. These books have been trialed with thousands of children across the years and subsequent revisions followed. The six Observation Survey tasks provide a way to observe early literacy learning behaviors. Tasks have high construct and face validity. Validity and reliability data and norms are provided in the 2006 edition of the Observation Survey. The Observation Survey is also available in a bilingual Spanish version for Descubriendo la Lectura. Books used for training Reading Recovery professionals also have evolved after trials with children. Each revision also accommodated new theoretical understandings and explanations. • The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A Diagnostic Survey with Recovery Procedures (Clay, 1979) • The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties (Clay, 1983) • Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training (Clay, 1993) • Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals Part One and Part Two (Clay, 2005) Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals is currently the core training text. Teaching procedures are accompanied by rationales and explanations. The book is not a script for instruction. During the training, teachers learn to select from the procedures based on the current needs of each child; teachers learn to make decisions to foster each child’s literacy learning. During the training, additional texts and articles are used to supplement the learning of the teachers and teacher leaders.

Access to Technical Support:
Ongoing professional development is a requirement for all Reading Recovery professionals. Several professional development sessions are scheduled yearly and include continued observation of one-to-one teaching sessions. Reading Recovery teacher leaders also provide ongoing support to teachers at their schools.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
30
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
12
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?
No technology is required.

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention of daily one-to-one lessons that supplement good classroom teaching for the lowest-achieving first graders. The goal is to dramatically reduce the number of first- grade children with extreme difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems. The lowest literacy achievers in Grade 1 receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12-20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. Daily and weekly records provide rich information for progress monitoring. As soon as children meet grade-level expectations and can continue to learn in the classroom, their lessons are discontinued, and new students begin individual instruction. Just as in the intent of RTI, two positive outcomes are possible: (a) responding to the intervention by meeting grade-level literacy expectations (approximately 75% of the children with complete interventions) and (b) recommended for further evaluation and future support. The intent of Reading Recovery lessons is to promote accelerated learning so that students can catch up with their peers and benefit from classroom instruction without supplemental help. Each lesson is individually designed and individually delivered by specially trained teachers and includes reading familiar books, reading yesterday’s new book while the teacher takes a running record, working with letters and/or words using magnetic letters, composing a written message, assembling a cut-up story, and reading a new book. Extensive training is required for the responsive, contingent teaching in Reading Recovery. Three levels of training form a network of expertise and support: (a) university-based trainers of teacher leaders; (b) site-based teacher leaders who train teachers; and (c) school-based teachers who deliver the intervention on their campuses. Reading Recovery is an intervention with internal and external cohesion to ensure fidelity of implementation, including • a published set of standards and guidelines for teaching, implementing, and evaluating the intervention; • a royalty-free trademark license; • an annual registry completed by each Reading Recovery site that verifies compliance with standards; • intensive year-long training for all levels of Reading Recovery professionals followed by ongoing professional development and support from teacher leaders and university trainers; • a standard lesson format within which teachers make decisions about each child; • annual evaluation of outcomes for every child in Reading Recovery by the International Data Evaluation Center; and • analysis of outcome and process data by university trainers who work with sites to ensure fidelity to the design of the implementation.

The program is intended for use in the following age(s) and/or grade(s).

not selected Age 0-3
not selected Age 3-5
not selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
not selected Second grade
not selected Third grade
not selected Fourth grade
not selected Fifth grade
not selected Sixth grade
not selected Seventh grade
not selected Eighth grade
not selected Ninth grade
not selected Tenth grade
not selected Eleventh grade
not selected Twelth grade


The program is intended for use with the following groups.

not selected Students with disabilities only
not selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
not selected English language learners
selected Any student at risk for academic failure
not selected Any student at risk for emotional and/or behavioral difficulties
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: Please indicate the academic area of focus.

Early Literacy

not selected Print knowledge/awareness
not selected Alphabet knowledge
selected Phonological awareness
not selected Phonological awarenessEarly writing
not selected Early decoding abilities
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Language

not selected Expressive and receptive vocabulary
not selected Grammar
not selected Syntax
not selected Listening comprehension
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Reading

selected Phonological awareness
selected Phonics/word study
selected Comprehension
selected Fluency
selected Vocabulary
not selected Spelling
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Mathematics

not selected Computation
not selected Concepts and/or word problems
not selected Whole number arithmetic
not selected Comprehensive: Includes computation/procedures, problem solving, and mathematical concepts
not selected Algebra
not selected Fractions, decimals (rational number)
not selected Geometry and measurement
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Writing

not selected Handwriting
selected Spelling
selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
selected Other
If other, please describe:

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Please indicate the behavior area of focus.

Externalizing Behavior

not selected Physical Aggression
not selected Verbal Threats
not selected Property Destruction
not selected Noncompliance
not selected High Levels of Disengagement
not selected Disruptive Behavior
not selected Social Behavior (e.g., Peer interactions, Adult interactions)
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Internalizing Behavior

not selected Depression
not selected Anxiety
not selected Social Difficulties (e.g., withdrawal)
not selected School Phobia
not selected Other
If other, please describe:

Acquisition and cost information

Where to obtain:

Address
500 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 250 Worthington, Ohio 43085-5218
Phone Number
614-310-7323
Website
www.readingrecovery.org

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$2807.00
Unit of cost
teacher

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
Unit of cost
Duration of license

Additional cost information:

Describe basic pricing plan and structure of the program. Also, provide information on what is included in the published program, as well as what is not included but required for implementation (e.g., computer and/or internet access)

Costs are considered at the school, site/district, or teacher level. Initial per teacher costs for a new implementation in a school would include the cost of the year-long training (costs vary according to universities granting credit), the initial purchase of non-consumable children’s books to be used with students (about $2,500), professional books, materials, and supplies (approximately $250), and data processing fees (about $57). Because costs of tuition and non-consumable books are a one-time cost, initial costs of implementing Reading Recovery can be amortized across several years. The one-time district or site cost of constructing a training facility with a one-way glass/mirror if one is not available can also be amortized over many years. The cost of Reading Recovery per trained teacher is dramatically reduced after the first year. The only replacement costs are optional additions to the non-consumable set of books used with children and possible non-consumable professional books for teachers. Expenditures to the district/site include ongoing professional development, data processing fees, university affiliation fees if applicable, and miscellaneous supplies. The basic pricing structure is generally at a district/site level. The primary expenditures are related to initial and ongoing professional development for teachers (e.g., one-time cost of constructing a training facility if one is not available, university tuition and fees for teachers-in-training, professional books and materials). Books used with children are non-consumable and represent a one-time expenditure with annual replacements as needed. Annual data processing fees vary according to the size of the district/site, and university affiliation fees vary according to the university. Included in the published materials for teachers: Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals includes teaching procedures and theoretical explanations of when and why a teacher would select particular procedures for particular children. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement includes screening tasks, norms, and information about reliability and validity. Not included but required: Initial training costs include university credit and fees for an academic year and the services of a registered teacher leader, access to a training facility with a one-way mirror, non-consumable books for use with children, non-consumable books for teachers. In subsequent years costs include ongoing professional development, data processing fees, university affiliation fees, optional new or replacement books for use with children, etc.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

selected Individual students
not selected Small group of students
not selected BI ONLY: A classroom of students

If group-delivered, how many students compose a small group?

  

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
30
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
12
not selected N/A (implemented until effective)

If intervention program is intended to occur over less frequently than 60 minutes a week for approximately 8 weeks, justify the level of intensity:

Does the program include highly specified teacher manuals or step by step instructions for implementation?
Yes

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: Is the program affiliated with a broad school- or class-wide management program?

If yes, please identify and describe the broader school- or class-wide management program:

Does the program require technology?
No

If yes, what technology is required to implement your program?
not selected Computer or tablet
not selected Internet connection
not selected Other technology (please specify)

If your program requires additional technology not listed above, please describe the required technology and the extent to which it is combined with teacher small-group instruction/intervention:
Technology is not required for the intervention with children. However, required data are sent electronically to the International Data Evaluation Center (IDEC).

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
Yes
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?
At-cost

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
An academic year of training with university credit

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
For an academic year, teachers meet weekly with a registered Reading Recovery teacher leader who has completed a full year of training at a university training center to prepare for training teachers. While in training, teachers are also working with Reading Recovery students. Teachers learn to observe and discuss lessons behind a one-way mirror/glass. Course content for teacher classes focuses on the teachers’ ability to: • carefully observe and articulate children’s literacy behaviors; • select and use appropriate teaching procedures for each child; • design a series of daily lessons to meet the needs of each individual child; • critically evaluate their teaching decisions and those of their peers; • build a sound understanding of theoretical principles of reading and writing with attention to difficulties with literacy learning; • implement the intervention within the comprehensive literacy plan of the school; and • assess, monitor, and report the individual progress of each child in the intervention. Concurrent with the training, these teachers work with children in one-to-one lessons for part of the school day. Teacher leaders also make school visits and support implementation in schools. Teachers continue learning through scheduled professional development sessions in subsequent years. The key to Reading Recovery success lies with teacher expertise and decision making.

What types or professionals are qualified to administer your program?

selected Special Education Teacher
selected General Education Teacher
selected Reading Specialist
selected Math Specialist
selected EL Specialist
selected Interventionist
selected Student Support Services Personnel (e.g., counselor, social worker, school psychologist, etc.)
not selected Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapist or Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)
not selected Paraprofessional
not selected Other

If other, please describe:

Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
Yes   

If yes, please describe: 

When selecting Reading Recovery teachers, schools are encouraged to consider teaching experience, preferably with primary-grade students. During and after the training year, Reading Recovery teachers gain expertise in observing, assessing, and monitoring progress of literacy learners as well as selecting appropriate teaching procedures for each child. Teachers build a strong theoretical foundation and knowledge base to support their work with children who are having literacy difficulties. Their expertise includes implementing the intervention in the school and collaborating with others to support each child’s learning.

Are training manuals and materials available?
Yes

Describe how the training manuals or materials were field-tested with the target population of instructors or interventionist and students:
An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, 2nd Edition (Clay, 2002, 2006) is currently used for screening for literacy difficulties and assessing change over time. The observation tasks were developed over a number of years (1963-1978) and subsequently revised. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A Diagnostic Survey (Clay, 1972) was followed by the first edition of the Observation Survey in 1993. These books have been trialed with thousands of children across the years and subsequent revisions followed. The six Observation Survey tasks provide a way to observe early literacy learning behaviors. Tasks have high construct and face validity. Validity and reliability data and norms are provided in the 2006 edition of the Observation Survey. The Observation Survey is also available in a bilingual Spanish version for Descubriendo la Lectura. Books used for training Reading Recovery professionals also have evolved after trials with children. Each revision also accommodated new theoretical understandings and explanations. • The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A Diagnostic Survey with Recovery Procedures (Clay, 1979) • The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties (Clay, 1983) • Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training (Clay, 1993) • Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals Part One and Part Two (Clay, 2005) Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals is currently the core training text. Teaching procedures are accompanied by rationales and explanations. The book is not a script for instruction. During the training, teachers learn to select from the procedures based on the current needs of each child; teachers learn to make decisions to foster each child’s literacy learning. During the training, additional texts and articles are used to supplement the learning of the teachers and teacher leaders.

Do you provide fidelity of implementation guidance such as a checklist for implementation in your manual?

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

If yes, please specify where/how practitioners can obtain support:

Ongoing professional development is a requirement for all Reading Recovery professionals. Several professional development sessions are scheduled yearly and include continued observation of one-to-one teaching sessions. Reading Recovery teacher leaders also provide ongoing support to teachers at their schools.

Summary of Evidence Base

Please identify, to the best of your knowledge, all the research studies that have been conducted to date supporting the efficacy of your program, including studies currently or previously submitted to NCII for review. Please provide citations only (in APA format); do not include any descriptive information on these studies. NCII staff will also conduct a search to confirm that the list you provide is accurate.

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up. Retrieved from: http://www.cpre.org/reading-recovery-evaluation-four-year-i3-scale

 May, H., Sirinides, P., Goldworthy, H., Armijo, M., Sam, C., Gillespie, J. N., & Tognatta, N. (2015). Year One Results From the Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery. American Educational Research Journal, 52(547-581).

Study Information

Study Citations

May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A. & Goldsworthy, H. (2016). Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up. Philadelphia, PA: Retrieved from: http://www.cpre.org/reading-recovery-evaluation-four-year-i3-scale

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students in the 1,254 schools that participated in the RCT were identified to be part of the experiment via the following screening process: Reading Recovery teachers first screened a pool of candidates for Reading Recovery intervention using the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (OS) (Clay, 2013). Candidates included 1st-grade students who were identified by school staff—including kindergarten, 1st-grade, and intervention teachers—as struggling readers.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Once schools had identified eight 1st-grade students with the lowest OS scores, Reading Recovery teachers entered the names of the selected students into an online random assignment tool, noting their English language learner (ELL) status and their baseline OS Text Reading Level (TRL) subtest scores. The tool then matched them into pairs by first matching any students with ELL designations, then matching the student with the lowest TRL subtest score with the next-lowest student, and so on. Once the students were matched, a randomizing algorithm then randomly assigned one student in each pair to the treatment group and the other to the control group. The result was recorded in IDEC, and the tool was locked so that randomization in that school could not be redone.

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?
0.0%

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:
Reading Recovery

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The study was designed as a delayed-treatment RCT; control students began receiving their Reading Recovery lessons after the posttests were administered to both treatment and control students in each matched pair. The ‘‘blocking’’ of students in matched pairs was a central part of the study design that produced, essentially, four mini-experiments per school.

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

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Age less than 1
Age 1
Age 2
Age 3
Age 4
Age 5
Kindergarten
Grade 1 4892 4892 0.00
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12

Race–Ethnicity

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
African American 587 636 0.06
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 978 929 0.04
White 2152 2055 0.05
Other 1272 1174 0.06

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch
No Subsidized Lunch

Disability Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Speech-Language Impairments
Learning Disabilities
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other
Not Identified With a Disability

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 929 929 0.00
Not English Language Learner 3963 3963 0.00

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 1957 1908 0.03
Male 2935 2984 0.03

Mean Effect Size

0.03

For any substantively (e.g., effect size ≥ 0.25 for pretest or demographic differences) or statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.05) pretest differences between groups in the descriptions below, 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 demographic characteristics, please describe the results of those analyses here.

Design Full Bobble

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.
The study was designed as a delayed-treatment RCT, control students began receiving their Reading Recovery lessons after the posttests were administered to both treatment and control students in each matched pair. The ‘‘blocking’’ of students in matched pairs was a central part of the study design that produced, essentially, four mini-experiments per school. A total of 4,892 students were randomized to treatment, and 4,892 to control. Both pretest and posttest data were available for 7,855 of these students (4,136 treatment; 3,719 control). Pairs in which either student was missing assessment data were dropped from the RCT, leaving a total of 6,888 students who were able to be matched into pairs with complete data (3,444 matched pairs in 1,122 schools).

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?
not selected Schools
not selected Teachers
selected Students
not selected Classes
not selected Other
If other, please specify:

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

Fidelity of Implementation Empty Bobble

How was the program delivered?
selected Individually
not selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
Maximum group size

What was the duration of the intervention (If duration differed across participants, settings, or behaviors, describe for each.)?

Weeks
12.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Teachers who deliver the Reading Recovery intervention must complete an intensive, year-long graduate-level training course taught by a literacy coach called a teacher leader. Through this training and ongoing professional development, teachers develop expertise at analyzing students’ literacy behaviors, identifying learning needs, and delivering responsive instruction. Reading Recovery theory asserts that the role of the teacher is to identify students’ strengths and needs, and to facilitate his or her learning by providing appropriate opportunities to acquire and practice new skills. Other key roles in Reading Recovery implementation include teacher leaders, who train and support Reading Recovery teachers, and Reading Recovery trainers, who are faculty members at OSU and its 19 partner universities around the U.S. Each partner university operates a University Training Center (UTC) that serves as a regional hub of Reading Recovery training and activity. University-based trainers support and train teacher leaders, and oversee the program’s operations within their areas.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Within the evaluation report, "Chapter 4, Reading Recovery Implementation Fidelity: Scale-up Successes and Challenges" focuses on the results for implementation fidelity under the scale-up, and describes the methods we used to obtain them. We report that, with very few exceptions, strong fidelity to the program model was seen in all four years of the evaluation (see pages 69-82).

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
CPRE/CRESP’s evaluation of implementation fidelity represents a rigorous, sustained, systematic, and successful attempt to measure and assess wide-ranging implementation activities. While our measurement was done via statistical analysis of survey data, the qualitative inquiry served both to corroborate the survey findings and to shed light on the few departures from fidelity that were observed. A consistent finding is that Reading Recovery was implemented with high fidelity to the program model over the course of the i3 scale-up. We found that the intervention was delivered as designed to the students in the scale-up, and that teachers delivering Reading Recovery lessons were properly trained. All in all, this finding suggests that the impacts we observed were, indeed, the result of faithful implementation of the intervention, and that the i3 scale-up successfully replicated Reading Recovery in the schools involved in the expansion. (p. 82)

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
CPRE/CRESP collected survey data from 1st-grade teachers in the schools participating in the scale-up in order to understand the services provided to control students while the treatment students received Reading Recovery. In addition, we surveyed Reading Recovery teachers in order to assess the extent of their instructional contact with control students during the experiment. This is especially important in this study because Reading Recovery teachers spend half of their time engaging in instructional activities outside of their Reading Recovery lessons (e.g., small-group work, co-teaching, push-in support). Control group students were allowed to receive any available supports or intervention services other than Reading Recovery, therefore we wanted to understand the extent to which control students were instructed by Reading Recovery teachers during the experiment. Survey data were collected from each Reading Recovery teacher in an RCT school on the precise types of interaction (whole-class, small-group, individualized), frequency of interaction (from never to daily), and the timing of interaction they had with the control group students (during or after the experiment). We were able to collect information on 1,177 (54 percent) of all 2,171 students assigned to the control group in Years Two and Three of the RCT. We found that 8 percent of the control group students had some exposure to their Reading Recovery teacher in a whole-class setting; 34 percent had exposure in a small-group setting; and 10 percent of the control group students received individualized support from the Reading Recovery teacher during the experiment. Individualized instructional interaction with a Reading Recovery teacher has the highest potential for imitating the intervention. It does not represent contamination since it does not involve one-to-one Reading Recovery lessons. Although the rate of one-to-one instructional contact is low, overall, the fact that nearly 40 percent of the control students were taught by a Reading Recovery teacher during the experiment may have caused some attenuation of the estimated impacts. (p. 36)

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Full Bobble

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

  • Targeted measures
    Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills that the program was directly targeted to improve.
    • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
    • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
  • Broader measures
    Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
    • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
    • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be academic performance in that setting or on-task behavior in another setting.
  • Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

Click here for more information on effect size.


What populations are you submitting outcome data for?
not selected Full sample
not selected Students at or below the 20th percentile
not selected English language learners
not selected Racial/ethnic subgroups
not selected Economically disadvantaged students (low socioeconomic status)
Targeted Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Broader Measure Reverse Coded? Reliability Relevance Exposure
Administrative Data Measure Reverse Coded? Relevance

Posttest Data

Targeted Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Full Sample)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Targeted Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Broader Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P

Administrative Measures (Subgroups)

Measure Sample Type Effect Size P
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:
The RCT addressed the following research objectives: 1. Estimate Reading Recovery’s impact on the early literacy competence of 1st-grade students, as measured by the ITBS; 2. Estimate the impacts of Reading Recovery on subscales of the ITBS as well as the OS, an aligned instrument used for Reading Recovery screening and monitoring; and 3. Estimate the impacts of Reading Recovery on two subgroups of particular interest Impacts on student reading performance were estimated in all analyses by comparing immediate post-intervention reading achievement of students randomly assigned to participate in Reading Recovery at the beginning of first grade to students randomly assigned to the control condition. We used a three-level hierarchical linear model (HLM) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) with students nested within matched pairs, and matched pairs nested within schools. The multi-site, matched-pairs design of this random assignment study means that each school and each pair is an independent mini-experiment, and that the estimated causal impact is less prone to problems associated with attrition through student and school non-participation. Differences in the posttest performance of the treatment and control students were estimated after controlling for pretest performance. For the confirmatory analysis of Reading Recovery’s impacts on the ITBS Reading Total scores for the full sample as well exploratory analyses of ELL and rural subgroup impacts and impacts on ITBS subscales, this HLM included each TRL score as a covariate. For exploratory analyses of impacts on the OS, the OS Total score was used as the covariate. All models also included a binary indicator of treatment condition, a four-level fixed effect for year, an interaction effect for treatment by year, a random effect for matched pair, a random effect for overall school performance (i.e., school intercepts), and a random effect for the impact of Reading Recovery (i.e., school treatment effects). A completely general (unstructured) covariance matrix was used, which included a correlation between random effects for school-level intercept and slope. Additionally, a grouped residual variance was included to account for differences in dispersion of outcome scores within the treatment versus control groups. Models were estimated using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.3 via Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML), with model-based standard errors and degrees of freedom based on within- and between-cluster sample sizes. (pp. 37-38)

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
WWC & E-ESSA
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

 

What Works Clearinghouse Review

Beginning Readers Protocol

EffectivenessReading Recovery® was found to have positive effects on alphabetics and general reading achievement and potentially positive effects on fluency and comprehension.

Studies Reviewed: 3 studies meet standards out of 79 studies total

Full Report

English Language Learners Protocol

Effectiveness: No studies of Reading Recovery® that fall within the scope of the English Language Learners (ELL) 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 Reading Recovery® on ELL.

Studies Reviewed: N/A

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

Program Outcomes: Reading Recovery has been evaluated in four qualifying studies (many other studies did not qualify because they only reported outcomes for successful students, or used developer-made measures). In comparison to control groups, the average effect size across the four studies was +0.43 on measures such as ITBS, CAT, Woodcock, and Gates. These outcomes qualify Reading Recovery for the ESSA “Strong” category, and for the “Solid Outcomes” rating (at least two studies with effect sizes of at least +0.20).

Number of Studies: 4

Average Effect Size: 0.43

Full Report

 

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
3
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Baenen, N., Bernhole, A., Dulaney, C., & Banks, K. (1997). Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2(2), 161.

Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8–39.

Disclaimer

Most tools and programs evaluated by the NCII are branded products which have been submitted by the companies, organizations, or individuals that disseminate these products. These entities supply the textual information shown above, but not the ratings accompanying the text. NCII administrators and members of our Technical Review Committees have reviewed the content on this page, but NCII cannot guarantee that this information is free from error or reflective of recent changes to the product. Tools and programs have the opportunity to be updated annually or upon request.