Sound Partners Kindergarten
Study: Vadasy et al. (2006)

Summary

Sound Partners Kindergarten is a supplemental Tier 2 intervention that provides integrated and explicit instruction in phonemic and alphabetic skills, including phonemic decoding skills and assisted oral reading practice in decodable texts. The program consists of a set of 70 scripted lessons (with 7-8 activities per lesson) with matched decodable texts that are used during 30-min tutoring sessions (typically provided 4 days a week, for about 20 weeks). Tutoring is typically conducted during the school day, outside the classroom in a quiet nearby school space. Typically, paraeducators spend 20 min on phonics activities and 10 min scaffolding students’ oral reading practice in decodable texts. Although phonics activities are designed to be completed within 20 min, paraeducators adjust the rate of progress through the lessons to meet students’ needs. Lesson activities include the following. 1. Letter-sound correspondence – Letters are introduced at a rate of about one new letter every two lessons. Both letter names and letter sounds are explicitly taught and practiced. Students practice by pointing to the letters, saying the sound, and writing the letters that matched the sounds spoken by the instructor. Lessons 1-27 include practice identifying 12 letters per lesson, and later lessons include practice in 16 letters per lesson. Instruction design features cumulative review of all letters, and added review on vowel sounds. When a student needs added practice to learn letter names, and particularly letter sounds, the paraeducator and the student practice with a letter-sound card for a few extra minutes each lesson. During this practice, the student points and matches the letter name/sound to the printed letter and pictured key word on the card, in a procedure described by Berninger (1998). 2. Segmenting – Students learn to segment 2-part compound words, 2-syllable words, 2-phoneme nonwords, 3-phoneme words, and finally, 4-phoneme words with consonant blends. Paraeducators model each item, and then orally present four items for the student to segment using Elkonin boxes (squares drawn on a piece of paper with one square for each speech segment). Students repeat each speech item, point to each box as they say the syllable or phoneme, and then sweep their finger under the boxes and say the word fast. 3. Word reading and spelling – In the first 20 lessons the paraeducator models phoneme blending: pointing to the sample word in each lesson, stretching out the sounds without stopping between phonemes, and then saying the word fast. Students then orally blend 6 words per lesson, with scaffolding and assistance. If needed, students receive added practice on weak letter sounds by identifying the sound in the initial, final, and middle position in a spoken word. The paraeducator dictates three words for the student to spell (words including the new sound, a difficult sound, and ending with an easy word), and provides explicit instruction in how to map letters to phonemes. Students repeat each word before they attempt to spell it, learn to segment each word into phonemes, and reread each word they spelled. Tutors direct students to a handwriting chart with numbered arrows to guide letter strokes and help students form letters efficiently. Students also fingerpoint-read short sentences constructed with previously taught words. At Lesson #33 students learn to read and spell words with plurals. 4. Irregular word instruction – Beginning in lesson 16, the tutor introduces high-frequency irregular words that appear in the decodable texts. The paraeducator reads the word and the student points to the word, spells it aloud, and reads the word again. One word is introduced every one-two lessons, with ongoing cumulative review of previously introduced words. 5. Phoneme blending – To add practice in recognizing orally blended words, the paraeducator asks the student to guess the word (say it fast) that the tutor says in a slow, stretched out way (without stopping between phonemes, just as the student is learning to do in the word reading activity) (in Lessons 1-20). 6. Alphabet naming practice – Based on the student’s level of alphabetic knowledge, the paraeducator asks the student to do one of these activities: (a) say the alphabet (letter names) while pointing to the letters on the letter sound card; (b) say the alphabet (letter names) without looking at the letters/chart; (c) point to the letters that the tutor names; or, (d) name the letters that the tutor points to. 7. Assisted oral reading practice – During the last 10 min of each session, beginning in Lesson 9, students practice reading aloud in the decodable Bob Books (Maslen, 2003), which are matched to the lessons for their instructional consistency (Hoffman, Sailors, & Patterson, 2002; Mesmer, 2004). Students read each book twice the first time it is introduced, and reread other books if time is available. Paraeducators are trained to choose a book reading method best suited for the individual student. Most students read independently, with tutor assistance, and some read the story with the paraeducator (partner reading), or reread a line of text after the instructor read the same line (echo reading). Supplemental decodable titles are provided when students need more texts for reading practice. The effectiveness of Sound Partners tutoring depends upon careful implementation. To ensure a successful Sound Partners tutoring program, schools should have: space for tutors to work with students; paraprofessional tutors available to work with students (one-on-one, 30 minutes/day, 4 days/week, for the entire school year); and, a program supervisor to oversee program implementation. A program supervisor (principal, reading teacher, resource teacher, or tutor coordinator) is essential to successful program implementation. Responsibility for supervising Sound Partners tutoring can usually be incorporated into the supervisor’s regular school job description, and may require 1 to 3 hours per week of time. For example, if a school has 6 experienced/skilled tutors who work with 5 students each (for a total of 30 students), overseeing the program may take about 1 hour per week. If a school has 6 inexperienced tutors, a program supervisor could spend up to 3 hours a week coaching and supervising tutors. The following list outlines the roles of the supervisor:  -Coordinating tutoring space and storage space for supplies, as well as supplies ordering and distribution  -Coordinating tutoring training and monthly tutoring meetings/follow-up trainings, as needed  -Providing tutors with support on student behavior concerns  -Monitoring tutor attendance and lesson instruction fidelity  -Monitoring student progress on mastery tests and reporting progress to teachers and parents  -Making tutors and the program visible, as part of the school’s reading program  -Answering questions for tutors, teachers, and parents about lesson instruction, tutor payroll, tutor and student attendance.

Target Grades:
K
Target Populations:
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • English language learners
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Phonological awareness
  • Phonics/word study
Where to Obtain:
Washington Research Institute
150 Nickerson St, Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98109
206-285-9317 ext 109
http://www.wri-edu.org/partners/
Initial Cost:
$90.00 per set of materials
Replacement Cost:
Contact vendor for pricing details.

$65 for masters set of lessons available from the developers, and approximately $25 for two sets of decodable Bob Books storybooks available from a bookstore/publisher. Replacement- Lessons can be copied. Storybooks can be replaced as needed. The estimated cost for program implementation will vary, based upon the type of implementer (hourly tutor, salaried paraeducator with benefits, or unpaid volunteer), the number of students a school plans to serve (and consequently how many students each tutor will serve). Based upon current tutoring costs (for hourly tutors) at our typical Seattle elementary sites, the estimated Sound Partners cost per student is $1,205, annually. We have broken down these costs below. School staff interested in training can contact the developers at Washington Research Institute. A small team of trainers are able to contract with individual schools and districts on a limited basis for on-site training or for training in Seattle. This has been done on a very limited basis and depends upon trainer availability and schedules. A tutor handbook that comes with the lessons can be used by local school staff to train their own tutors. The handbook was prepared to allow a reading specialist or special education teacher who oversees tutors to provide training. A trainer’s outline is also available from the developers.

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.)
  • Paraprofessional
  • Other:
Training Requirements:
1-4 hours of training for initial training

This program is designed to be implemented by paraeducator tutors. Typically a half day of training is provided. Trainers model use of the scripted lessons, and supervise practice in use of each component. Follow up coaching is typically provided, either locally by our trainers, or by the school contact who is trained to be the on-site coach/supervisor. The program includes a coaching guide, as well as a format for recording fidelity of use.


The training manual and training procedures were used in several RCT studies of this program, as well as in an earlier first grade version of the program, and a second-third grade version of the program (tutoring in advanced word reading skills). The training manual design has been effective in preparing typical tutors in those studies to implement the program with a high degree of fidelity.

Access to Technical Support:
Not available
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
30
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
4
Minimum Number of Weeks:
20
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:

Sound Partners Kindergarten is a supplemental Tier 2 intervention that provides integrated and explicit instruction in phonemic and alphabetic skills, including phonemic decoding skills and assisted oral reading practice in decodable texts. The program consists of a set of 70 scripted lessons (with 7-8 activities per lesson) with matched decodable texts that are used during 30-min tutoring sessions (typically provided 4 days a week, for about 20 weeks). Tutoring is typically conducted during the school day, outside the classroom in a quiet nearby school space. Typically, paraeducators spend 20 min on phonics activities and 10 min scaffolding students’ oral reading practice in decodable texts. Although phonics activities are designed to be completed within 20 min, paraeducators adjust the rate of progress through the lessons to meet students’ needs. Lesson activities include the following. 1. Letter-sound correspondence – Letters are introduced at a rate of about one new letter every two lessons. Both letter names and letter sounds are explicitly taught and practiced. Students practice by pointing to the letters, saying the sound, and writing the letters that matched the sounds spoken by the instructor. Lessons 1-27 include practice identifying 12 letters per lesson, and later lessons include practice in 16 letters per lesson. Instruction design features cumulative review of all letters, and added review on vowel sounds. When a student needs added practice to learn letter names, and particularly letter sounds, the paraeducator and the student practice with a letter-sound card for a few extra minutes each lesson. During this practice, the student points and matches the letter name/sound to the printed letter and pictured key word on the card, in a procedure described by Berninger (1998). 2. Segmenting – Students learn to segment 2-part compound words, 2-syllable words, 2-phoneme nonwords, 3-phoneme words, and finally, 4-phoneme words with consonant blends. Paraeducators model each item, and then orally present four items for the student to segment using Elkonin boxes (squares drawn on a piece of paper with one square for each speech segment). Students repeat each speech item, point to each box as they say the syllable or phoneme, and then sweep their finger under the boxes and say the word fast. 3. Word reading and spelling – In the first 20 lessons the paraeducator models phoneme blending: pointing to the sample word in each lesson, stretching out the sounds without stopping between phonemes, and then saying the word fast. Students then orally blend 6 words per lesson, with scaffolding and assistance. If needed, students receive added practice on weak letter sounds by identifying the sound in the initial, final, and middle position in a spoken word. The paraeducator dictates three words for the student to spell (words including the new sound, a difficult sound, and ending with an easy word), and provides explicit instruction in how to map letters to phonemes. Students repeat each word before they attempt to spell it, learn to segment each word into phonemes, and reread each word they spelled. Tutors direct students to a handwriting chart with numbered arrows to guide letter strokes and help students form letters efficiently. Students also fingerpoint-read short sentences constructed with previously taught words. At Lesson #33 students learn to read and spell words with plurals. 4. Irregular word instruction – Beginning in lesson 16, the tutor introduces high-frequency irregular words that appear in the decodable texts. The paraeducator reads the word and the student points to the word, spells it aloud, and reads the word again. One word is introduced every one-two lessons, with ongoing cumulative review of previously introduced words. 5. Phoneme blending – To add practice in recognizing orally blended words, the paraeducator asks the student to guess the word (say it fast) that the tutor says in a slow, stretched out way (without stopping between phonemes, just as the student is learning to do in the word reading activity) (in Lessons 1-20). 6. Alphabet naming practice – Based on the student’s level of alphabetic knowledge, the paraeducator asks the student to do one of these activities: (a) say the alphabet (letter names) while pointing to the letters on the letter sound card; (b) say the alphabet (letter names) without looking at the letters/chart; (c) point to the letters that the tutor names; or, (d) name the letters that the tutor points to. 7. Assisted oral reading practice – During the last 10 min of each session, beginning in Lesson 9, students practice reading aloud in the decodable Bob Books (Maslen, 2003), which are matched to the lessons for their instructional consistency (Hoffman, Sailors, & Patterson, 2002; Mesmer, 2004). Students read each book twice the first time it is introduced, and reread other books if time is available. Paraeducators are trained to choose a book reading method best suited for the individual student. Most students read independently, with tutor assistance, and some read the story with the paraeducator (partner reading), or reread a line of text after the instructor read the same line (echo reading). Supplemental decodable titles are provided when students need more texts for reading practice. The effectiveness of Sound Partners tutoring depends upon careful implementation. To ensure a successful Sound Partners tutoring program, schools should have: space for tutors to work with students; paraprofessional tutors available to work with students (one-on-one, 30 minutes/day, 4 days/week, for the entire school year); and, a program supervisor to oversee program implementation. A program supervisor (principal, reading teacher, resource teacher, or tutor coordinator) is essential to successful program implementation. Responsibility for supervising Sound Partners tutoring can usually be incorporated into the supervisor’s regular school job description, and may require 1 to 3 hours per week of time. For example, if a school has 6 experienced/skilled tutors who work with 5 students each (for a total of 30 students), overseeing the program may take about 1 hour per week. If a school has 6 inexperienced tutors, a program supervisor could spend up to 3 hours a week coaching and supervising tutors. The following list outlines the roles of the supervisor:  -Coordinating tutoring space and storage space for supplies, as well as supplies ordering and distribution  -Coordinating tutoring training and monthly tutoring meetings/follow-up trainings, as needed  -Providing tutors with support on student behavior concerns  -Monitoring tutor attendance and lesson instruction fidelity  -Monitoring student progress on mastery tests and reporting progress to teachers and parents  -Making tutors and the program visible, as part of the school’s reading program  -Answering questions for tutors, teachers, and parents about lesson instruction, tutor payroll, tutor and student attendance.

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
selected Kindergarten
not 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
selected Students with learning disabilities
not selected Students with intellectual disabilities
not selected Students with emotional or behavioral disabilities
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
not 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
not selected Comprehension
not selected Fluency
not 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
not selected Spelling
not selected Sentence construction
not selected Planning and revising
not 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
150 Nickerson St, Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98109
Phone Number
206-285-9317 ext 109
Website
http://www.wri-edu.org/partners/

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$90.00
Unit of cost
set of materials

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)

$65 for masters set of lessons available from the developers, and approximately $25 for two sets of decodable Bob Books storybooks available from a bookstore/publisher. Replacement- Lessons can be copied. Storybooks can be replaced as needed. The estimated cost for program implementation will vary, based upon the type of implementer (hourly tutor, salaried paraeducator with benefits, or unpaid volunteer), the number of students a school plans to serve (and consequently how many students each tutor will serve). Based upon current tutoring costs (for hourly tutors) at our typical Seattle elementary sites, the estimated Sound Partners cost per student is $1,205, annually. We have broken down these costs below. School staff interested in training can contact the developers at Washington Research Institute. A small team of trainers are able to contract with individual schools and districts on a limited basis for on-site training or for training in Seattle. This has been done on a very limited basis and depends upon trainer availability and schedules. A tutor handbook that comes with the lessons can be used by local school staff to train their own tutors. The handbook was prepared to allow a reading specialist or special education teacher who oversees tutors to provide training. A trainer’s outline is also available from the developers.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

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

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

   2

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
30
Minimum number of sessions per week
4
Minimum number of weeks
20
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:

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?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
1-4 hours of training for initial training

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
This program is designed to be implemented by paraeducator tutors. Typically a half day of training is provided. Trainers model use of the scripted lessons, and supervise practice in use of each component. Follow up coaching is typically provided, either locally by our trainers, or by the school contact who is trained to be the on-site coach/supervisor. The program includes a coaching guide, as well as a format for recording fidelity of use.

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)
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: 

Yes, the tutor supervisor should have a background in beginning reading acquisition and instruction. No, the tutors often have no background in beginning reading instruction.

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:
The training manual and training procedures were used in several RCT studies of this program, as well as in an earlier first grade version of the program, and a second-third grade version of the program (tutoring in advanced word reading skills). The training manual design has been effective in preparing typical tutors in those studies to implement the program with a high degree of fidelity.

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

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
No

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

Although technical support is not typically needed, out trainers remain available to support 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.

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (in press). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008a). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A replication and comparison of instructional grouping. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 929-963.

Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008b). Individual tutoring for struggling readers: Moving research to scale with interventions implemented by paraeducators. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of dyslexia (pp. 337-355). London: Sage Publications.

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508-528.

Study Information

Study Citations

Vadasy, P. F., Sanders , E. A. & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98() 508-528.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
Students were selected using a two-stage screening process. In December of kindergarten, 19 full-day kindergarten teachers in 9 elementary schools were asked to identify students who would benefit from intensive additional reading instruction. Schools averaged 73% minority enrollment; eight schools had large enrollments of students from high poverty backgrounds (students eligible for free or reduced lunch averaged 59% across all sites), and students who were limited English proficient (averaging 17%)..Parent consents for student participation were obtained by the schools prior to student testing. Of the 126 kindergarten students referred, 75 met eligibility criteria, which included: producing (verbally) 13 or fewer individual letter sounds when presented with a sheet of randomly ordered upper case letters; scoring in the deficit range (< 10 per min) on Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) Initial Sound Fluency subtest, and scoring in the at-risk range on at least two of the following three DIBELS subtests (and scoring at-some-risk on the remaining subtest): Letter Name Fluency (< 27 per min), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (< 18 per min), and Nonsense Word Fluency (< 13 per min). According to DIBELS developers (Good, et al., 2003), students with at-risk indicators in two or more areas generally require intensive intervention to meet early literacy goals. Students with special education, Title I, or English as a Second Language status were not excluded from the study. The 75 students who met eligibility criteria were randomly assigned within school to treatment or control conditions. After attrition, the final sample included 67 students.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Teachers referred students for screening who were at risk, and researchers screened students on alphabetic and phonological skills, using DIBELS measures. Students who scored in the at risk or deficit range on two of the three DIBELS subtests were eligible. Furthermore, all students in the sample were at-risk with a grand mean of the sample below 25th percentile on the CTOPP Phonological Awareness Measure. (Grand mean CTOPP across both treatment and control conditions is 82.66, which is < 15th percentile on this measure).

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 Sound Partners kindergarten program was used as the treatment condition in this study

Specify which condition is the control condition:
The control condition was “business as usual” classroom reading instruction (no treatment

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 36 31 0.38
Grade 1
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
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Other

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 9 8 0.03
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female
Male 26 13 0.78

Mean Effect Size

0.40

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 75 students who met eligibility criteria were randomly assigned within schools to supplemental or regular classroom reading instruction. Schools did not serve controls with individual tutoring, but, as indicated in Table 1, provided students in both groups with quite varied levels of Title I, ESL, and special education services. In each of the nine schools, approximately equal numbers of students were assigned to each condition.

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 Full 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
18.00
Sessions per week
4.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
30.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The 11 participating paraeducators were mostly non-minority (91%) and female (82%), and varied in their educational levels, general tutoring experience, and experience working with kindergartners. Education level ranged from 12 years (high school completion) to 17 years (teacher education program completion), M = 14.1 (SD = 2.12), and six (55%) paraeducators had more than a high school education. The average education level of paraeducators in this study is similar to that recommended in new NCLB requirements. Prior to the study, the range of paraeducator tutoring experience was 0 to 9 years, M = 3.7 (SD = 3.82); four had no previous tutoring experience. Five (45%) had some previous experience working with kindergarteners, although most had no experience with this age group, M = 0.6 years (SD = 0.81, Range = 0 to 2). All paraeducators were hired as district employees and paid by the schools with funds provided by the research grant.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Researchers conducted an average of 16 observations per paraeducator (SD = 4) over the course of the intervention. Paraeducators without previous tutoring experience received an average of 19 observations. Observers used an implementation checklist that included two to four behavioral criteria for each of 9 instructional activities (e.g., one criterion for word reading was models sounding out without stopping between sounds, and one criterion for spelling was scaffolds with phoneme segmenting). Instructional behaviors were rated on a scale of 0-4, with higher scores indicating better performance. Interrater reliability for 29 paired observations was r = 0.90, p < 0.001.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Across 177 observations, treatment fidelity was acceptable, M = 3.64 (SD = 0.37).

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?

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:
We used classic analyses of variance as well as growth modeling to test differences between groups. Analysis results are described in detail on pp. 513-516 of the publication. Because there were differences between treatment and control conditions on gender at the beginning of the study, gender is factored into all analyses.

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

Effectiveness: Sound Partners was found to have positive effects on alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension and no discernible effects on general reading achievement on beginning readers.

Studies Reviewed: 7 studies meet standards out of 11 studies total

Full Report

Evidence for ESSA

English Learners

Program Outcomes: Two studies evaluated Sound Partners with English learners. One involved kindergartners and one first graders. Effect sizes were significantly positive compared to controls at both grade levels. The effect size across Woodcock and CTOPP measures was +0.60 for kindergartners, +0.15 for first graders. Follow-up studies found that these outcomes were still seen two years later, on Word Reading and Comprehension. The positive outcomes qualify Sound Partners for the ESSA “Strong” category, and for the “Solid Outcomes” rating (effect size of at least +0.20 over at least two studies).

Number of Studies: 2

Average Effect Size: 0.36

Full Report

Struggling Readers

Program Outcomes: Two studies, one at the kindergarten level and the other at the first grade level, qualified for the review. The average effect size was +0.58 on measures from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test and CTOPP. These met the criteria for the ESSA “Strong” category, and for “Solid Outcomes” (two studies with effect sizes of at least +0.20). Follow-up studies of the kindergartners and first graders both found positive effects maintained two years later on word reading and comprehension.

Number of Studies: 4

Average Effect Size: 0.58

Full Report

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
4
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–86.

Mooney, P. J. (2003). An investigation of the effects of a comprehensive reading intervention on the beginning reading skills of first graders at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05A), 85–1599.

Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 579–590.

Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O’Connor, R. E. (1997a). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(1), 126–139.

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.