Responsive Reading Instruction
Study: Denton et al. (2010)

Summary

Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI) was created to help the lowest-performing first and second graders learn to read competently and within the average range for their age groups. RRI small-group lessons are based on six elements that research has shown are important for effective instruction of struggling readers: 1. Instruction in Key Domains of Reading: RRI addresses the five key elements of effective reading instruction as noted by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. 2. Explicit Instruction: RRI directly teaches the knowledge and skills involved in learning to read. RRI teachers provide explicit instruction by consistently using an instructional format designed to directly teach students what they need to learn. The teacher models, demonstrates, or clearly explains the concept or skill and guides the students as they practice it. 3. Opportunities to Practice: Students who are having difficulty learning to read need extended practice to master new knowledge and skills. RRI provides ample practice opportunities to enable students to practice skills and apply knowledge until it becomes a habit. 4. Targeted Instruction Based on Assessment: In RRI, teachers provide targeted instruction by assessing students strengths and needs to find out what they need to learn, providing instruction based on assessment results, monitoring student progress, and reinforcing/reteaching as needed. RRI teachers conduct assessments of one individual student in each lesson (on a rotating basis). Every student in the group is assessed at least once a week. 5. Scaffolding and Feedback: RRI provides teachers with effective scaffolding techniques to use when students struggle with a particular concept; for example, providing students books at the appropriate readability level, providing additional prompts, or breaking tasks into smaller steps. Immediate corrective feedback and specific praise is also employed to support students throughout the lessons. 6. The Home-School Connection: In RRI, the home-school connection is established early in the school year, as teachers connect with parents through notes and phone calls, as well as invitations to school to observe lessons or meet with the teacher. In addition, RRI teachers provide weekly updates to parents to summarize skills learned that week. RRI also provides strategies for teachers to recommend to parents for use at home. In the classroom, RRI teachers follow a consistent lesson structure that includes: Word Work, Print Concepts and Fluency, Assessment, Supported Reading, and Supported Writing. Optional DVD includes modeling of 34 of the RRI activities.

Target Grades:
K, 1, 2
Target Populations:
  • Students with disabilities only
  • Students with learning disabilities
  • Any student at risk for academic failure
Area(s) of Focus:
  • Phonological awareness
  • Phonics/word study
  • Comprehension
  • Fluency
  • Spelling
  • Spelling
  • Sentence construction
  • Planning and revising
  • Other: Writing Process and Strategies and Writing in Response to Text
Where to Obtain:
Cambium Education, Inc.
4093 Specialty Place, Longmont, CO 80504
800-547-6747
www.cambiumlearning.com
Initial Cost:
$19.99 per 5 students / 1 teacher
Replacement Cost:
Free

5 Students & 1 Teacher: $19.99 per student (includes teacher materials without DVD) 5 Students & 1 Teacher: $25.19 per student (includes teacher materials with DVD) Pricing is based on 2012 pricing. Visit http://store.cambiumlearning.com for future pricing. Essentially, Responsive Reading Instruction comprises a single instructional manual/resource guide. This guide includes planning/implementation guides and reproducibles. An optional component is a DVD that contains models of 34 RRI instructional routines. Manipulatives (for example, sentence strips and magnetic letters) and leveled readers are not included.

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:
Training not required

Although training is not required it is strongly recommended by the program developer. The program manual states that, "Teachers should receive adequate professional development to enable them to effectively use the program." The developers recommends 2 days of professional development prior to implementation and two more days of follow-up training later in the school year. If possible, some form of ongoing support (such as coaching) is recommended.


Four days of training, along with a coaching protocol, were developed and field tested under funding from the US Department of Education through an IERI (Interagency Educational Research Initiative) grant (Scaling-up Effective Interventions for Preventing Reading Difficulties: Grant R305W030257; Patricia Mathes, PI). As part of that grant we provided train-the-trainer professional development for lead teachers who would train and coach other teachers in their school districts. This model has been subsequently implemented in other school districts.

Access to Technical Support:
Not required, but recommended. On-going teacher support is available.
Recommended Administration Formats Include:
  • Small group of students
Minimum Number of Minutes Per Session:
40
Minimum Number of Sessions Per Week:
5
Minimum Number of Weeks:
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:

Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI) was created to help the lowest-performing first and second graders learn to read competently and within the average range for their age groups. RRI small-group lessons are based on six elements that research has shown are important for effective instruction of struggling readers: 1. Instruction in Key Domains of Reading: RRI addresses the five key elements of effective reading instruction as noted by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. 2. Explicit Instruction: RRI directly teaches the knowledge and skills involved in learning to read. RRI teachers provide explicit instruction by consistently using an instructional format designed to directly teach students what they need to learn. The teacher models, demonstrates, or clearly explains the concept or skill and guides the students as they practice it. 3. Opportunities to Practice: Students who are having difficulty learning to read need extended practice to master new knowledge and skills. RRI provides ample practice opportunities to enable students to practice skills and apply knowledge until it becomes a habit. 4. Targeted Instruction Based on Assessment: In RRI, teachers provide targeted instruction by assessing students strengths and needs to find out what they need to learn, providing instruction based on assessment results, monitoring student progress, and reinforcing/reteaching as needed. RRI teachers conduct assessments of one individual student in each lesson (on a rotating basis). Every student in the group is assessed at least once a week. 5. Scaffolding and Feedback: RRI provides teachers with effective scaffolding techniques to use when students struggle with a particular concept; for example, providing students books at the appropriate readability level, providing additional prompts, or breaking tasks into smaller steps. Immediate corrective feedback and specific praise is also employed to support students throughout the lessons. 6. The Home-School Connection: In RRI, the home-school connection is established early in the school year, as teachers connect with parents through notes and phone calls, as well as invitations to school to observe lessons or meet with the teacher. In addition, RRI teachers provide weekly updates to parents to summarize skills learned that week. RRI also provides strategies for teachers to recommend to parents for use at home. In the classroom, RRI teachers follow a consistent lesson structure that includes: Word Work, Print Concepts and Fluency, Assessment, Supported Reading, and Supported Writing. Optional DVD includes modeling of 34 of the RRI activities.

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
selected First grade
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.

selected Students with disabilities only
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
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
selected Comprehension
selected Fluency
not selected Vocabulary
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
selected Planning and revising
selected Other
If other, please describe:
Writing Process and Strategies and Writing in Response to Text

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
4093 Specialty Place, Longmont, CO 80504
Phone Number
800-547-6747
Website
www.cambiumlearning.com

Initial cost for implementing program:

Cost
$19.99
Unit of cost
5 students / 1 teacher

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)

5 Students & 1 Teacher: $19.99 per student (includes teacher materials without DVD) 5 Students & 1 Teacher: $25.19 per student (includes teacher materials with DVD) Pricing is based on 2012 pricing. Visit http://store.cambiumlearning.com for future pricing. Essentially, Responsive Reading Instruction comprises a single instructional manual/resource guide. This guide includes planning/implementation guides and reproducibles. An optional component is a DVD that contains models of 34 RRI instructional routines. Manipulatives (for example, sentence strips and magnetic letters) and leveled readers are not included.

Program Specifications

Setting for which the program is designed.

not 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?

   3-5

Program administration time

Minimum number of minutes per session
40
Minimum number of sessions per week
5
Minimum number of weeks
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:
Optional technology only - The optional DVD, which models instructional strategies, is available for teachers. Visit www.soprislearning.com.rri for system requirements.

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:
Although training is not required it is strongly recommended by the program developer. The program manual states that, "Teachers should receive adequate professional development to enable them to effectively use the program." The developers recommends 2 days of professional development prior to implementation and two more days of follow-up training later in the school year. If possible, some form of ongoing support (such as coaching) is recommended.

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?
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:
Four days of training, along with a coaching protocol, were developed and field tested under funding from the US Department of Education through an IERI (Interagency Educational Research Initiative) grant (Scaling-up Effective Interventions for Preventing Reading Difficulties: Grant R305W030257; Patricia Mathes, PI). As part of that grant we provided train-the-trainer professional development for lead teachers who would train and coach other teachers in their school districts. This model has been subsequently implemented in other school districts.

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:

Not required, but recommended. On-going teacher support is available.

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.

Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kurz, T. B., & Shih, M. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394-416.

Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005).The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly 40(2), 148-182.

Study Information

Study Citations

Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kutz, T. B. & Shih, M. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools.. Exceptional Children, 76(4) 394-416.

Participants Full Bobble

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:
All first grade students at each participating school were screened to identify a pool of students at risk for serious reading difficulties. After identifying a pool of eligible at risk participants at each school, the researchers randomly selected 6 to 26 students within each school and randomly assigned them to one of two groups: RRI or typical school practice (TSP).

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional or behavioral difficulties (BI):
In a multistep screening process, the researchers assessed students with (a) letter sound, blending phonemes, and word reading screens from the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI); (b) a word reading task derived from the WJ-III Letter Word Identification subtest; and (c) a first grade oral reading fluency passage. In the first year of the study, students were eligible for inclusion if they failed the TPRI screen measures, had a score of 8 or less on the word-reading measure, and had oral reading fluency rates of 8 correct words per minute or less. In Year 2, the cutoffs for word reading and oral reading fluency were lowered to scores of 3 and 5 respectively. The researchers excluded students from the sample who received their primary reading instruction in a language other than English, those who had severe intellectual disabilities or emotional disturbance, and those with developmental disabilities such as autism. Students were included with mild to moderate disabilities who received their primary reading instruction in general education classrooms.

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:
Responsive Reading Instruction (RRI)

Specify which condition is the control condition:
Typical School Practice (TSP)

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 1 182 240 0.09
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 33 32 0.22
American Indian
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic 73 109 0.13
White
Other 76 99 0.03

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 2 4 0.00
Learning Disabilities 1 2 1.40
Behavior Disorders
Emotional Disturbance
Intellectual Disabilities
Other 1 4 1.40
Not Identified With a Disability 178 230 0.04

ELL Status

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
English Language Learner 9 16 0.26
Not English Language Learner

Gender

Demographic Program
Number
Control
Number
Effect Size: Cox Index
for Binary Differences
Female 84 80 0.28
Male 98 160 0.29

Mean Effect Size

0.38

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 Half Bobble

What method was used to determine students' placement in treatment/control groups?
Systematic
Please describe the assignment method or the process for defining treatment/comparison groups.
After identifying the pool of eligible at-risk students at each school, we randomly selected 6 to 26 students within each school and randomly assigned them to one of two groups: RRI or typical school practice (TSP). The range in number of students assigned from school to school was due to differing numbers of at-risk first-grade students and available RRI teachers. In all, 507 students were randomized to the study conditions, 222 to RRI and 285 to TSR During implementation, 40 RRI (18%) and 45 TSP (16%) students left the study; the large majority attended the four schools that withdrew from the study. A chisquare analysis indicated no significant differences in levels of attrition between groups. Within both the RRI and TSP groups, students who left the study did not differ significantly from those who completed it on pretest word reading ability (see Table 1). After attrition, 182 RRI students and 240 TSP students had complete data and were included in the analysis.

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?
not selected Individually
selected Small Group
not selected Classroom

If small group, answer the following:

Average group size
Minimum group size
3
Maximum group size
4

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

Weeks
25.00
Sessions per week
5.00
Duration of sessions in minutes
40.00
What were the background, experience, training, and ongoing support of the instructors or interventionists?
The principal at each school selected one or more certified teachers who were currently employed at the school to provide RRI to at least one group of first grade students each day, for a total of 40 teachers over the 2-year study. The interventionists had a variety of primary job assignments on their campuses with 31 full-time reading teachers, 2 classroom teachers, 2 librarians, 1 special educator, 1 physical education coach who had never taught reading, and 1 educational assistant (i.e., paraprofessional) with teaching credentials. All but one of the teachers held elementary education teaching credentials, and several were certified in other areas as well, including English as a second language/bilingual education (15), early childhood education (13), reading specialist/master reading teacher (13), special education (12), and secondary education (8). Teachers’ total years of experience as professional educators ranged from 2 to 31 years (M = 17.15; SD = 8.38), and they had from 0 to 21 years of experience as reading interventionists. (M = 4.93; SD = 5.12). Seven teachers had previous training in an explicit phonics-emphasis intervention, and 15 had previously been trained in the Reading Recovery program. Teachers participated in about 18 hours of professional development in RRI over 3 days at the beginning of the school year provided by the program developers and one experienced RRI teacher. It focused on (a) the research basis for the program, (b) RRI instructional procedures, and (c) the use of assessment results in lesson planning, and included videotaped modeling and mock teaching sessions to practice procedures. In Year 2, continuing teachers received about 6 hours (1 day) of professional development at the beginning of the school year. In each of the 2 years, all teachers participated in 12 hours of follow-up professional development over 2 days—one in late fall and another in early spring. Two experienced former RRI teachers provided coaching to some of the intervention teachers in the study. Each RRI teacher in the study had been randomly assigned to receive support in one of the three following formats: (a) traditional on-site coaching (n = 15), (b) technology-based coaching (n = 13), and (c) on-demand coaching in which teachers could contact a coach with questions or request visits from a coach but rarely did (n = 12) as part of a separate study. (See page 402)

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained.
Two RRI coaches and one project coordinator observed intervention teachers and students for one entire teaching session, approximately once every 9 weeks for a total of three fidelity observations per teacher per year using a fidelity measure closely aligned with the intervention. The coaches did not observe their own teachers. Teachers did not receive feedback following these fidelity observations. Inter-observer reliability was established by co-viewing and independently rating lessons in schools, a procedure repeated within each cycle of data collection. Training of observers continued until they reached at least 80% agreement with program developers. Fidelity was rated on a 4 point Likert scale from 0 to 3 for each activity observed within each of the five components of a lesson. For each component, observers rated items addressing three domains: a) adherence to program procedures, (b) implementation quality, and (c) students’ on-task behaviors during the intervention.

What were the results on the fidelity-of-treatment implementation measure?
On average, teachers implemented RRI with adequate fidelity, although there was variation across teachers. The mean overall fidelity rating for all RRI teachers across all observations was 80.14% (SD = 8.43%; range, 57.33%--94.58%). Mean ratings (using the 0 to 3 scale with 0 meaning the element was expected but not observed and 3 being the highest rating) across all teachers for each of the three domains were 2.08 (SD = 0.47) for adherence to the RRI procedures; 2.26 (SD = 0.38) for quality of implementation, and 2.61 (SD = 0.22) for students’ on-task behavior.

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:
Group differences were modeled with multilevel techniques, where students were nested within school and measurement occasions were nested within students in schools as appropriate. (See page 405). For pretest-posttest measures, differences between groups were estimated by analyzing two-level hierarchical linear models, where students were nested within schools. For the ORF continuous progress monitoring measure, differences between groups were estimated by analyzing three-level linear growth models where measurement occasions were nested within students in schools. By centering the intercept at the last measurement occasion, the researchers were able to estimate the extent to which groups differed at the last phase of assessment. Group (RRI, TSP) was included as a student level variable. Covariates included Cohort because the study was conducted over 2 years with 2 different cohorts of students, Ethnicity and Gender. Each student measurement outcome was tested separately. (See page 405)

Additional Research

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

What Works Clearinghouse Review

 

WWC only reviewed the report “Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools.” The findings from this review do not reflect the full body of research evidence on Responsive Reading Instruction.

 

WWC Rating: Meets WWC standards with reservations.

 

Full Report

 

Evidence for ESSA

No studies considered met Evidence for ESSA's inclusion requirements.

How many additional research studies are potentially eligible for NCII review?
0
Citations for Additional Research Studies :

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.