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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Students in both standalone and embedded intervention schools showed average pre-post gains of 13–25 percentile points on reading measures and 6–25 percentile points on language measures. → Foorman 2017 q3 i? The largest language gain was FRA Sentence Comprehension in grade 1, 35–39 percentile points, but the subtest is normed on kindergartners. → Foorman 2017 (2)

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 · i? · causal · r3

Descriptive pre-post percentile-rank comparison from table 1 of the two-cohort cluster-randomized trial; the report states "the average difference between baseline and outcome percentile ranks on FRA reading measures was 13–25 percentile points across grades", with parallel language gains of 6–25 points, and cautions the gains may reflect regression to the mean or normative growth.

"The average difference between baseline and outcome percentile ranks on FRA reading measures was 13–25 percentile points across grades."

Foorman 2017 (2)¶

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 · i? · causal · r3

Descriptive finding for FRA Sentence Comprehension in grade 1, an average difference of 35–39 percentile points; "students in schools in both intervention groups began just below the 30th percentile and ended the year above the 60th percentile", and the report notes the norms are kindergarten-based.

"Students in schools in both intervention groups began just below the 30th percentile and ended the year above the 60th percentile."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• 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
• Enhanced Proactive Reading shows no discernible effects on English language development — related
• Relative effects of the standalone versus embedded intervention were inconsistent across cohorts and baseline scores, favoring first one intervention and then the other — related
• Students in both interventions gained on average from at or below the 10th percentile to at least the 20th percentile on FRA reading tasks — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)