Relative effects of the standalone versus embedded intervention were inconsistent across cohorts and baseline scores, favoring first one intervention and then the other¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Substantively important but not always statistically significant differences favored the standalone intervention for SESAT Word Reading in kindergarten (0.37 and 0.28 standard deviation in cohorts 1 and 2) and favored the embedded intervention for FRA Word Reading in grade 1 cohort 1 (0.29 standard deviation). → Foorman 2017

Evidence¶

Foorman 2017¶

Foorman, B., Herrera, S., Dombek, J., Schatschneider, C., & Petscher, Y. (2017). The relative effectiveness of two approaches to early literacy intervention in grades K–2 (REL 2017–251). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

Subgroup probes of treatment interactions in the hierarchical linear models; the FRA Word Reading outcome was "higher in embedded intervention schools than in standalone intervention schools" in grade 1 cohort 1, with a printed effect size of 0.29 standard deviation (22 points, 11 percentile rank points). The report describes the overall cross-cohort pattern as inconsistent.

"In grade 1 the FRA Word Reading outcome was higher in embedded intervention schools than in standalone intervention schools among students in cohort 1."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The standalone intervention significantly improved grade 2 FRA Sentence Comprehension only among cohort 1 students with a low vocabulary baseline (0.38 standard deviation) — related
• A standalone tier 2 early literacy intervention did not significantly improve reading or language outcomes relative to an embedded intervention in grades K–2, except for grade 2 spelling — a broader claim this one bears on
• At-risk K–2 students in both intervention groups improved on average 13–25 percentile points on reading outcomes and 6–25 percentile points on language outcomes — related
• In kindergarten, English learner students benefited more from the embedded intervention in phonological awareness while non–English learner students benefited more from the standalone intervention in word reading — related
• The grade 2 spelling advantage of the standalone intervention was larger among students with low baseline spelling scores (0.27 standard deviation) — related
• Intervention effects were moderated by cohort and baseline performance, with some substantively important subgroup differences favoring stand-alone — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)