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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 In grade 2 the standalone intervention produced significantly better FRA Spelling outcomes than the embedded intervention, a 17-point difference equivalent to 0.18 standard deviation and 7 percentile rank points. → Foorman 2017 q3 i? Across grades K–2 there were no other statistically significant differences in reading or language outcomes between the standalone and embedded interventions. → 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 · i0 · causal · r2

Cluster-randomized trial in 55 low-performing Florida schools across two cohorts; hierarchical linear models with students nested in small groups nested in schools. The standalone intervention "resulted in significantly improved spelling outcomes relative to the embedded intervention"; the printed effect size is 0.18 standard deviation (17 points, 7 percentile rank points), below d = 0.2.

"In grade 2 the standalone intervention resulted in significantly improved spelling outcomes relative to the embedded intervention, including among students with a low FRA Spelling baseline score."

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 · r2

Hierarchical linear model analyses by grade with baseline covariates found "no other differences in reading outcomes between students in standalone and embedded intervention schools"; the report also states there were no differences in most language outcomes by cohort or baseline performance between the intervention groups.

"There were no other differences in reading outcomes between students in standalone and embedded intervention schools for grades K–2."

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) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Relative effects of the standalone versus embedded intervention were inconsistent across cohorts and baseline scores, favoring first one intervention and then the other — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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