|
|
Effectiveness
Findings
The WWC review of interventions for beginning reading addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. 5 The studies included in this report cover two domains: alphabetics and fluency. Within alphabetics, results for three constructs—phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and phonics—are reported. The findings below present the authors' estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects of Earobics® on students. 6
Alphabetics. Two studies reviewed findings in the alphabetics domain. Cognitive Concepts (2003) found and the WWC confirmed statistically significant positive effects on three phonological awareness measures (ORAL-J: Blending into Words, Segmenting into Sounds, and Rhyming Words subtests). The study authors did not find statistically significant effects of Earobics® on the letter knowledge measure (ORAL-J: Letter Naming subtest) or the phonics measure (the ORAL-J: Sound of Letters subtest). 7 The average effect size across the five outcomes was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria (that is, an effect size of at least 0.25).
Valliath (2002) found that the overall intervention effect across the eight measures of beginning reading was not statistically significant. 8 The WWC analyzed four phonological awareness measures (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words, Blending Non-Words, Elision, and Sound Matching subtests) and two phonics measures (Woodcock Reading Mastery Test: Word Identification and Word Attack subtests). The WWC found that the effect for one of the four phonological awareness tests (CTOPP: Sound Matching subtest) was positive and statistically significant. Effects for the other three phonological awareness and the two phonics subtests were not statistically significant. The average effect size across the six outcomes was large enough to be considered substantively important according to the WWC criteria (that is, an effect size of at least 0.25).
Fluency. Cognitive Concepts (2003) did not find statistically significant effects of Earobics® and the effect was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.
Rating of effectiveness
The WWC rates the effects of an intervention in a given outcome domain as: positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and the comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme).
6 The level of statistical significance was reported by the study authors or, where necessary, calculated by the WWC to correct for clustering within classrooms or schools and for multiple comparisons. For an explanation, see the WWC Tutorial on Mismatch. See the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme for the formulas the WWC used to calculate the statistical significance. In the case of Earobics ®, corrections for multiple comparisons were needed.
7 Data for some of the phonics outcomes were received through communication with the author.
8 The WWC did not use all eight measures in its analysis. See Appendix A1.2.
