Reading for All Learners
Study: Callow-Heusser & Sanborn (2016)

Summary

In 1990, Dr. Alan Hofmeister at the Center for Information Technology (CIT) at Utah State University initiated a long-term, programmatic research and development effort in beginning reading instruction. After surveying a wide range of approaches to reading instruction, the CIT selected the Beginning Reading Program developed by the Southwest Regional Laboratory (SWRL) for Educational Research and Development initially released in 1972. The original “Little Books” Beginning Reading Program combined the needs and interests of children with research on structured, systematic phonics-based approaches to reading instruction. The SWRL Little Books included 60 low-cost black and white line-art softback books that combined both engaging stories and systematic instruction and that were field-tested and revised over the course of a decade to ensure students made adequate progress. Given the theoretical and research base upon which the SWRL books were developed, the available longitudinal research with at-risk learners, and the comparative cost-effectiveness data, CIT researchers decided to build upon SWRL products and findings rather than try to develop a beginning reading program from scratch based on a similar approach. During the next 17 years, the CIT systematically and progressively revised the SWRL reading program based on field-testing data to incorporate research-based practices well-aligned with recommendations in the National Reading Panel’s (2000) summary of evidence-based practices. The revised reading program was extensively adapted to further incorporate evidence-based strategies and field-tested to ensure reading success. Embedded teaching strategies included systematic and explicit phonics instruction using controlled introduction of sounds and words in connected text, cumulative review of sounds and words, comprehension questions asking students to infer or predict, repeated readings, explicit teaching of morphological rules for silent “e” words and prefixes and suffixes, regular reminders to praise the child, teacher/parent training materials, and other teaching/learning activities. Additionally, original books that introduced too many new sounds or words were split into multiple books to further control sequencing and introduction of sounds and words. New stories were written to ensure consistent timing for new sound and word introduction and to add sufficient cumulative review, and curriculum-based assessments were developed. The revised program was released as Reading for All Learners (RFAL) with 141 different books containing more than 300 lessons in eight sets. The sets take students from beginning kindergarten reading levels into third grade. For each lesson, teachers only need to locate the next book (or books if more than one lesson is covered) in the set, with enough copies for each student in the group. The lessons are self-contained within the book. All sound and word practice, stories, comprehension questions, progress monitoring/ formative assessments, instructions for implementation, etc., are contained in each book. The revised RFAL, copyrighted by Dr. Hofmeister, is distributed by Academic Success for All Learners (Utah entity #5642708-0142, established May 2004; DUNS 159364368) to schools and districts in more than 40 states, with extensive use in Native American schools throughout the country and inner-city boroughs of New York City, and in schools in Puerto Rico, Guyana, South America, Kenya, Uganda, and English reading instruction programs in other countries throughout Africa, Europe, Asia and Russia. Additionally, as the result of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant (#1330901), RFAL apps are available for mobile devices including iPads, iPhones, Android tablets, Android phones, and Kindle Fire tablets, along with a web-based Student Assessment and Monitoring (SAM) data and reporting system. There are several major differences between RFAL and other popular reading curricula. One substantive difference includes the sequencing of sounds and words. RFAL incorporates high frequency sounds and words in the initial instruction to capitalize on student familiarity with commonly used words. As a result, this curriculum differs from others because it introduces letters with long vowel sounds (e.g., I, me, see) before teaching all short vowel sounds. Additionally, letters with dissimilar shapes and sounds are initially taught (i.e., s, a, and m), with letters that look or sound similar taught separated in time. Furthermore, RFAL varies sentence length, patterns, and rhythms so students must pay attention in order to read fluently and accurately. Teachers, in particular, note this difference from other reading curricula they have implemented. Finally, in the first 3 sets (of 8), each story is self-contained in one book to help children feel successful in “closing the book” and completing a story. Particularly for children reading below grade level, completing a book with mastery of sounds and words, as well as comprehension of the story, provides momentum for continued reading and engagement and appears to increase students’ feelings of success.

Target Grades:
Age 3-5, K, 1, 2, 3
Target Populations:
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Print knowledge/awareness
  • Alphabet knowledge
  • Phonological awareness
  • Other: Oral Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Morphology Skills (later levels)
Where to Obtain:
Academic Success for All Learners
142 West 200 North, Suite B, Logan UT 84321
435-755-7885
www.iseesam.com
Initial Cost:
$17.00 per student
Replacement Cost:
Free

$4-$30 per student. Cost varies widely depending on edition (black and white vs. color) and platform selected (print vs. digital), and grade level. Print Editions – Cost to equip one classroom with the print edition K – $185 - $300 ($7-$10 per student); Grades 1 or 2 $555-$900 per classroom ($18.50-$30 per student); Digital Edition (cost for software only) Kindergarten-Third Grade Classroom $120-$240 ($4-$8 per student).

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: RFAL is used successfully by paraprofessionals, classroom volunteers, and parents working with students.
Training Requirements:
Training not required

Most teachers trained to teach early reading will be able to lead lessons with fidelity after reviewing the content included in the Teacher’s Manual and by following prompts embedded throughout the program books. Although training is not required, it is recommended in the case of paraprofessional-led interventions and peer-led interventions.


Since 2004, the instructor support materials have been continually refined in response to feedback and in keeping with reading instruction research. Program users are encouraged to provide feedback

Access to Technical Support:
Academic Success for All Learners provides technical assistance on-line, via telephone and in person based on customer inquiries. Training materials are readily available on-line. Support materials are included at no cost with all print materials and with the mobile device applications. Additional materials are available for free or for purchase on-line. In response to customer requests, Academic Success for All Learners will provide materials to school and district personnel for school-led professional development. Consultants are also available to train school personnel.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Individual students
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
20
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
8
Detailed Implementation Manual or Instructions Available:
Yes
Is Technology Required?

Program Information

Descriptive Information

Please provide a description of program, including intended use:

In 1990, Dr. Alan Hofmeister at the Center for Information Technology (CIT) at Utah State University initiated a long-term, programmatic research and development effort in beginning reading instruction. After surveying a wide range of approaches to reading instruction, the CIT selected the Beginning Reading Program developed by the Southwest Regional Laboratory (SWRL) for Educational Research and Development initially released in 1972. The original “Little Books” Beginning Reading Program combined the needs and interests of children with research on structured, systematic phonics-based approaches to reading instruction. The SWRL Little Books included 60 low-cost black and white line-art softback books that combined both engaging stories and systematic instruction and that were field-tested and revised over the course of a decade to ensure students made adequate progress. Given the theoretical and research base upon which the SWRL books were developed, the available longitudinal research with at-risk learners, and the comparative cost-effectiveness data, CIT researchers decided to build upon SWRL products and findings rather than try to develop a beginning reading program from scratch based on a similar approach. During the next 17 years, the CIT systematically and progressively revised the SWRL reading program based on field-testing data to incorporate research-based practices well-aligned with recommendations in the National Reading Panel’s (2000) summary of evidence-based practices. The revised reading program was extensively adapted to further incorporate evidence-based strategies and field-tested to ensure reading success. Embedded teaching strategies included systematic and explicit phonics instruction using controlled introduction of sounds and words in connected text, cumulative review of sounds and words, comprehension questions asking students to infer or predict, repeated readings, explicit teaching of morphological rules for silent “e” words and prefixes and suffixes, regular reminders to praise the child, teacher/parent training materials, and other teaching/learning activities. Additionally, original books that introduced too many new sounds or words were split into multiple books to further control sequencing and introduction of sounds and words. New stories were written to ensure consistent timing for new sound and word introduction and to add sufficient cumulative review, and curriculum-based assessments were developed. The revised program was released as Reading for All Learners (RFAL) with 141 different books containing more than 300 lessons in eight sets. The sets take students from beginning kindergarten reading levels into third grade. For each lesson, teachers only need to locate the next book (or books if more than one lesson is covered) in the set, with enough copies for each student in the group. The lessons are self-contained within the book. All sound and word practice, stories, comprehension questions, progress monitoring/ formative assessments, instructions for implementation, etc., are contained in each book. The revised RFAL, copyrighted by Dr. Hofmeister, is distributed by Academic Success for All Learners (Utah entity #5642708-0142, established May 2004; DUNS 159364368) to schools and districts in more than 40 states, with extensive use in Native American schools throughout the country and inner-city boroughs of New York City, and in schools in Puerto Rico, Guyana, South America, Kenya, Uganda, and English reading instruction programs in other countries throughout Africa, Europe, Asia and Russia. Additionally, as the result of a National Science Foundation (NSF) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant (#1330901), RFAL apps are available for mobile devices including iPads, iPhones, Android tablets, Android phones, and Kindle Fire tablets, along with a web-based Student Assessment and Monitoring (SAM) data and reporting system. There are several major differences between RFAL and other popular reading curricula. One substantive difference includes the sequencing of sounds and words. RFAL incorporates high frequency sounds and words in the initial instruction to capitalize on student familiarity with commonly used words. As a result, this curriculum differs from others because it introduces letters with long vowel sounds (e.g., I, me, see) before teaching all short vowel sounds. Additionally, letters with dissimilar shapes and sounds are initially taught (i.e., s, a, and m), with letters that look or sound similar taught separated in time. Furthermore, RFAL varies sentence length, patterns, and rhythms so students must pay attention in order to read fluently and accurately. Teachers, in particular, note this difference from other reading curricula they have implemented. Finally, in the first 3 sets (of 8), each story is self-contained in one book to help children feel successful in “closing the book” and completing a story. Particularly for children reading below grade level, completing a book with mastery of sounds and words, as well as comprehension of the story, provides momentum for continued reading and engagement and appears to increase students’ feelings of success.

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

not selected Age 0-3
selected Age 3-5
selected Kindergarten
selected First grade
selected Second grade
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

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

If other, please describe:
Oral Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Morphology Skills (later levels)

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

not selected Phonological awareness
not 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
142 West 200 North, Suite B, Logan UT 84321
Phone Number
435-755-7885
Website
www.iseesam.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$17.00
Unit of cost
student

Replacement cost per unit for subsequent use:

Cost
$0.00
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)

$4-$30 per student. Cost varies widely depending on edition (black and white vs. color) and platform selected (print vs. digital), and grade level. Print Editions – Cost to equip one classroom with the print edition K – $185 - $300 ($7-$10 per student); Grades 1 or 2 $555-$900 per classroom ($18.50-$30 per student); Digital Edition (cost for software only) Kindergarten-Third Grade Classroom $120-$240 ($4-$8 per student).

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?

   2-6

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
20
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
8
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?
Yes

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:
The mobile device applications used for the digital version include the student materials used in small-group lessons. The applications include a pairing function which permits the teacher to control the presentation on student devices.

Training

How many people are needed to implement the program ?

Is training for the instructor or interventionist required?
No
If yes, is the necessary training free or at-cost?

Describe the time required for instructor or interventionist training:
Training not required

Describe the format and content of the instructor or interventionist training:
Most teachers trained to teach early reading will be able to lead lessons with fidelity after reviewing the content included in the Teacher’s Manual and by following prompts embedded throughout the program books. Although training is not required, it is recommended in the case of paraprofessional-led interventions and peer-led interventions.

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
selected Other

If other, please describe:

RFAL is used successfully by paraprofessionals, classroom volunteers, and parents working with students.
Does the program assume that the instructor or interventionist has expertise in a given area?
No   

If yes, please describe: 


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:
Since 2004, the instructor support materials have been continually refined in response to feedback and in keeping with reading instruction research. Program users are encouraged to provide feedback

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

Can practitioners obtain ongoing professional and technical support?
Yes

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

Academic Success for All Learners provides technical assistance on-line, via telephone and in person based on customer inquiries. Training materials are readily available on-line. Support materials are included at no cost with all print materials and with the mobile device applications. Additional materials are available for free or for purchase on-line. In response to customer requests, Academic Success for All Learners will provide materials to school and district personnel for school-led professional development. Consultants are also available to train school personnel.

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.

Callow-Heusser, C.A., & Sanborn, W.A. (2016). Findings from a study of early reading interventions with randomized assignment to groups (submitted to the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse and the Best Evidence Encyclopedia housed at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education). Park City, UT: EndVision Research and Evaluation, LLC.

Callow-Heusser, C.A., Krebs, S., & Willis, P. (2013). Cache School District’s multi-tiered system of supports helps students who are most in need of additional intervention to SUCCEED! Utah Special Educator, 35(2).

Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Findlay, P., Major, J., Gilberts, G., & Hofmeister, A. (2001). The association between a home reading program and young children's early reading skill. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 117-136.

Hanson, R. A., & Farrell, D. (1995). The long-term effects on high school seniors of learning to read in kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 908-933.

       

Study Information

Study Citations

Callow-Heusser, C. A. & Sanborn, W. A. Findings from a Study of Early Reading Interventions with Randomized Assignment to Groups . EndVision Research and Evaluation, LLC. To obtain: http://iseesam.com/supporting-research/

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
All children enrolled in 1st grade who were enrolled in school during beginning of year DIBELS benchmark testing and who scored below grade level (strategic or intensive needs in reading based on the DIBELS beginning of year benchmark assessment) were included in the study, per the school’s agreement with families about conducting research to best meet students’ needs. Students who enrolled after beginning of year assessments were assigned to appropriate small groups per placement testing results, with new students alternately assigned to treatment or comparison groups to ensure consistent sizing of groups and to minimize disruption from new students. However, students who enrolled after random assignment to groups were not included in the analysis reported here. Students with disabilities were also included in the study, with these students randomly assigned to treatment or comparison groups separately from students not identified with disabilities. Students with disabilities who were best taught in resource room settings were also randomly assigned to treatment or comparison groups, with those students taught either one-on-one or in small groups of two students.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
Students who were assigned to treatment or comparison groups based on DIBELS beginning of year benchmark composite scores included 30% Hispanic and 8% refugee or immigrant students from other countries. More than 25% spoke a home language other than English. According to the NCES, 99% of students qualified for free and reduced lunch in the 2013-2014 school year. Approximately 11% of the students who participated in the study had been identified for special services other than speech language services.

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:
Reading for All Learners (RFAL) authored by Dr. Alan Hofmeister, distributed by Academic Success for All Learners

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Early Reading Intervention (ERI) authored by Dr. Edward J. Kame’enui and Dr. Deborah C. Simmons, distributed by Scott Foresman. ERI had been used as the primary intervention for several years prior to this study; therefore, it served as the “business-as-usual” intervention at the 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 16 16 2.52
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 4 4 0.03
White 12 13 0.03
Other

Socioeconomic Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Subsidized Lunch 16 17 0.00
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 16 17 0.00

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 4 4 0.03
Not English Language Learner 12 13 0.03

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 11 10 0.26
Male 5 7 0.26

Mean Effect Size

0.35

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.

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group means on pretest measures.

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.
After beginning of year DIBELS benchmark assessments were completed, researchers met with literacy specialists at the school to randomly assign students to groups. All students who performed below grade level based on the DIBELS composite score were selected. Those students were grouped according to similar patterns of scores on the DIBELS subtests. For example, first grade students needing strategic support based on the composite score were grouped together based on levels of risk on the individual subtests: Phoneme Segmentation and Nonsense Words Fluency. Those who needed strategic support on both subtests were placed in one group, while those who needed intensive support on Nonsense Words Fluency but strategic support on Phoneme Segmentation Fluency were placed in another group. Those with intensive needs on both subtests were placed in yet another group. Students were ordered within groups according to DIBELS composite scores. Then, the first two students from a group were selected. A coin was flipped to determine if the first student was assigned to the treatment group (heads) or the comparison group (tails). The other student was assigned to the other group. Then the next two students were selected and again, the coin was tossed. If there was an odd number of students in the original group, the coin was tossed to determine the assignment of the last unpaired student. In this way, the odds for each student of being assigned to the treatment group was 50%.

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?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
6
Minimum group size
3
Maximum group size
8

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

Weeks
14.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
45.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
Licensed teachers and paraprofessionals who had been teaching reading for a minimum of 3 years conducted the small group instruction. Academic Success for All Learners staff provided a 4-hour RFAL training for all instructors assigned to the program/ treatment groups at the outset of the study. A trainer observed small group instruction and provided feedback on a monthly basis.

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Approximately once per month, a RFAL trainer visited the school to answer questions specific to RFAL, conduct classroom observations, and offer suggestions to improve quality of instruction. Most of these suggestions applied equally to both RFAL and ERI reading groups, as they involved pacing, error correction, academic feedback, frequency of group choral versus individual responses, and other effective teaching practices. Additionally, observers conducted classroom observations of all treatment and control groups on a monthly basis utilizing a standardized observation form designed to capture fidelity of implementation data. Results indicated that fidelity of implementation was consistent across groups and programs.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
Because all instructors taught both treatment and comparison groups, differences due to instructors were minimized. Additionally, observation of instructors under both conditions showed comparable fidelity of implementation of both programs.

Was the fidelity measure also used in control classrooms?
Yes. See above.

Measures and Results

Measures Targeted : Full Bobble
Measures Broader : Dash

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:
This study included random assignment to treatment and comparison groups of those students who fell below grade level on the beginning of year DIBELS benchmark assessment in one elementary school. As such, the sample size for the number of students participating in the study is adequate to achieve sufficient statistical power when analyzed using student as the unit of analysis. Using cluster sizes of small group or classroom would not be feasible for power requirements with this sample. To help account for teacher effects, teachers and paraprofessionals taught small groups of students using both the treatment (RFAL) and the comparison (ERI) programs, having been trained to use both. Several analyses were conducted. Based on the assumption that random assignment to groups created “equal” groups, analysis of variance statistical tests were conducted for each outcome measure. Additionally, to account for baseline group differences in beginning of year assessments despite random assignment to groups, linear regression on the outcome variable with beginning of year composite scores and group (treatment or comparison) as independent variables was conducted to determine the proportion of variability in the outcome that could be accounted for by beginning of year reading skills and group membership. Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for study data are included. Because groups were equivalent at baseline (after random assignment to groups), no statistical adjustments were made. Additionally, no adjustments were calculated to account for clustering. A Bonferroni correction could be used to account for multiple comparisons within the same domain. A Bonferroni correction adjusts the p-value (or confidence interval) by dividing by the number of comparisons. However, actual p-values are reported below, and because all are larger than .05 and, hence, not statistically significant when uncorrected, a Bonferroni correction was not necessary.

Additional Research

Is the program reviewed by WWC or E-ESSA?
No
Summary of WWC / E-ESSA Findings :

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Evidence for ESSA

This program was not reviewed by Evidence for ESSA.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
1
Citations for Additional Research Studies :
Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Findlay, P., Major, J., Gilberts, G., & Hofmeister, A. (2001). The Association between a Home Reading Program and Young Children's Early Reading Skill. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 117-136.

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.