A supplement to regular reading instruction delivered to elementary school children with Intellectual Disability to develop reading and writing skills that should enable greater academic achievement later in school.
Blueprints: Promising
Contact for Materials or Sales Rep:
McGraw-Hill Education
www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/MKTSP-UTU01M0.related.html
Contact for Training:
The Institute for Evidence-Based Education
Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750381
Dallas, TX 75275-0381
Email: iebe@smu.edu
Phone: 214-768-8400
Fax: 214-768-8700
Web: www.smu.edu/evidencebasededucation
Web: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE
Jill Allor
Simmons School of Educ. Human Development
The daily, school-based intervention for elementary school children with Intellectual Disability is delivered as a supplement to the regular reading instruction in small groups (1 to 4 people) by highly trained teachers over the course of 4 years. For 40 to 50 minutes per day, children receive comprehensive reading instruction that progresses at their own pace, moving from word recognition and other word-level activities (e.g., phonological awareness, letter sounds, "sounding out" words) to fluency and comprehension. Lessons are aligned so that each level of reading increases gradually in complexity throughout the curriculum. In the final year of the intervention, supplemental practice is added to the teacher-led sessions, where students are provided with materials (e.g., word cards, small readers, activity pages) and encouraged to play reading games with others or read aloud with someone else, such as a family member or higher-performing peer.
The daily, school-based intervention for elementary school children with Intellectual Disability is delivered in small groups (1 to 4 people) by highly trained teachers over the course of 4 years. For 40 to 50 minutes per day children receive comprehensive reading instruction that progresses at their own pace, moving from word recognition and other word-level activities (e.g., phonological awareness, letter sounds, "sounding out" words) to fluency and comprehension. Lessons are designed to be fast-paced to maximize student engagement and incorporate frequent and cumulative review to ensure mastery and maintenance of previously learned skills. Daily sessions are aligned so that each level of reading (word skills, fluency, comprehension) increases gradually in complexity throughout the curriculum, though students can repeat individual and group sessions as needed before progressing to more difficult concepts. In the final year of the intervention, supplemental practice is added to the teacher-led sessions, where students are provided with materials (e.g., word cards, small readers, activity pages) and encouraged to play reading games with others or read aloud with someone else, such as a family member or higher-performing peer. Activities are designed to target the needs of individual students and are closely monitored by teachers who provide accountability, encouragement, and feedback on implementation.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Allor et al. (2014) found that, relative to controls, children participating in the 4-year intervention improved outcomes measuring:
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Allor et al. (2014) conducted a randomized control trial of 141 students with IQs between 40 and 80 in up to 15 schools in an urban, public school district in the Southwest United States. At baseline, students were randomly assigned within school to the intervention (N= 76) or control (N= 65) groups. As students dropped out of the study (N= 41) due to providing incomplete data, moving, or developing severe medical problems, new students were added. In the 2nd year 20 students were added, in the 3rd year 13 students were added, and in the final year 8 students joined the study. Assessments were administered when students entered the study and at the end of each academic year.
Study 1
Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs? Exceptional Children, 80(3), 287-306.
School: Instructional Practice
*
Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
See also: SRA Early Interventions in Reading Logic Model (PDF)
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific race, ethnic, or gender group.
Study 1 Allor et al. (2014) did not test for subgroup effects defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, economic disadvantage, geographic location, or birth origin.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
For the Study 1 sample, about a quarter of students identified as White, with over two-thirds identifying as either Black or Hispanic.
Training is available from Southern Methodist University, Institute for Evidence Based Education. The initial two-day training is conducted in the early fall prior to starting Book A. In late fall, a one-day training is conducted to cover Book B. In early spring, a one-day training is conducted prior to beginning Book C. Training costs $2,000 per day plus travel. Thus, the total costs for training would be $8,000, plus travel costs for 3 trips.
Contact: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE
Additional website address: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE/CustomTraining
Training may also be availabe from McGraw-Hill Education, the supplier of the curriculum, however, you would need to contact the regional sales representative online, as no information was provided to us about their training.
www.mheonline.com/directinstruction/early-interventions-in-reading/
Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.
Training is available from Southern Methodist University, Institute for Evidence Based Education. The initial two-day training is conducted in the early fall prior to starting Book A. In late fall, a one-day training is conducted to cover Book B. In early spring, a one-day training is conducted prior to beginning Book C. Training costs $2,000 per day plus travel. Thus, the total costs for training would be $8,000, plus travel costs for 3 trips.
Contact: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE
Additional website address: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE/CustomTraining
Curriculum and materials are available from SRA McGraw-Hill:
For ordering Early Interventions in Reading materials:
www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/MKTSP-UTU01M0.html
Main Website:
www.mheonline.com/programMHID/view/SRAEIRLV11
There are three levels of curriculum materials that span Grades K-3. Students are administered a placement test prior to ordering level materials. The teacher and student materials costs for each level are provided below. It should be noted that students who place into Level 1 should all receive the Challenge Stories at $16.38 per student. In addition, teachers must order one Story-Time Reader kit per student for small group work. If running multiple small groups, this resource can be shared among groups.
Level K:
Level 1:
Level 2:
The Online Teacher Subscription is included with every Teacher Materials purchase and provides access to 2Inform online progress monitoring, Teacher eBooks, Teacher Presentation Tools, Correlations, Professional Learning, and Background Videos and Games.
None.
Activity books for children must be replaced every year. Prices vary by level. See costs proposal/price list on McGraw-Hill website.
The program works most effectively in contexts where there is a dedicated intervention teacher. In one study, teachers were certified in Special Education.
Requires a space for one teacher and a small group of students.
It is strongly recommended that teachers receive ongoing coaching in their initial year of implementation. Coaching services are available from SMU's Institute for Evidence Based Education.
No information is available
None.
No information is available
No information is available
The following example assumes one elementary school uses one dedicated teacher to administer the Early Interventions in Reading curriculum. The teacher holds six sessions a day for groups of 4 kids each, a total of 24 kids, with 8 using Level K materials, 8 using Level 1 materials, and 8 using Level 2 materials throughout the year.
| Initial training for Book A (2-day), plus travel | $5,000.00 |
| Training For Books B & C (2 one-day trainings), plus travel | $6,000.00 |
| Teacher Kit and Student Materials for 8 students (Level K) | $809.28 |
| Teacher Kit and Student Materials for 8 students (Level 1) | $2,231.91 |
| Teacher Kit and Student Materials for 8 students (Level 2) | $2,184.87 |
| Special Education Teacher (dedicated to Reading Intervention) | $55,000.00 |
| Total One Year Cost | $71,226.06 |
The Year One cost to serve 24 students equally spread across the three curricula levels is $2,968 per student.
Early Interventions in Reading is a small-group literacy intervention for students with Intellectual Disability. Education funding streams focused on professional development, special education, and literacy are the primary sources used to fund the intervention.
The critical resource commitment required to implement Early Interventions in Reading is the allocation of teacher time for training and delivering the intervention. Students receive the intervention in small groups for 40 - 50 minutes per day, and schools typically use reading intervention specialists and special education teachers to deliver the intervention.
State education funds allocated to local school systems as well as locally-appropriated public school funding can support Early Interventions in Reading. State compensatory education funds can be important sources of support in some states in low performing districts. Professional development funds can also be used for teacher training.
Formula Funds:
Discretionary Grants: Federal discretionary grants from the Department of Education can be used to fund the initial training and materials. Discretionary funds targeting literacy as well as students with disabilities could be used to support the program.
Foundations, particularly local education funds that support enhanced services in local school districts, and foundations with a stated interest in improving educational achievement or literacy, can provide funding for initial training and curricula purchase.
Jill AllorProfessor, Dept. of Teaching and LearningSimmons School of Educ. Human DevelopmentSouthern Methodist UniversityP. O. Box 750455Dallas, TX 75275-0455U.S.A.214-768-4435214-768-2171jallor@smu.edu www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE
A supplement to regular reading instruction delivered to elementary school children with Intellectual Disability to develop reading and writing skills that should enable greater academic achievement later in school.
The program targets 1st through 4th grade children with Intellectual Disability (ID), defined as having an IQ between 40 and 80.
Subgroup differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender (coded in binary terms as male/female) or program effects for a sample of a specific race, ethnic, or gender group.
Study 1 Allor et al. (2014) did not test for subgroup effects defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, economic disadvantage, geographic location, or birth origin.
Sample demographics including race, ethnicity, and gender for Blueprints-certified studies:
For the Study 1 sample, about a quarter of students identified as White, with over two-thirds identifying as either Black or Hispanic.
Individual
-Intellectual Disability (Program Focus)
School: Instructional Practice
*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program
The daily, school-based intervention for elementary school children with Intellectual Disability is delivered as a supplement to the regular reading instruction in small groups (1 to 4 people) by highly trained teachers over the course of 4 years. For 40 to 50 minutes per day, children receive comprehensive reading instruction that progresses at their own pace, moving from word recognition and other word-level activities (e.g., phonological awareness, letter sounds, "sounding out" words) to fluency and comprehension. Lessons are aligned so that each level of reading increases gradually in complexity throughout the curriculum. In the final year of the intervention, supplemental practice is added to the teacher-led sessions, where students are provided with materials (e.g., word cards, small readers, activity pages) and encouraged to play reading games with others or read aloud with someone else, such as a family member or higher-performing peer.
The daily, school-based intervention for elementary school children with Intellectual Disability is delivered in small groups (1 to 4 people) by highly trained teachers over the course of 4 years. For 40 to 50 minutes per day children receive comprehensive reading instruction that progresses at their own pace, moving from word recognition and other word-level activities (e.g., phonological awareness, letter sounds, "sounding out" words) to fluency and comprehension. Lessons are designed to be fast-paced to maximize student engagement and incorporate frequent and cumulative review to ensure mastery and maintenance of previously learned skills. Daily sessions are aligned so that each level of reading (word skills, fluency, comprehension) increases gradually in complexity throughout the curriculum, though students can repeat individual and group sessions as needed before progressing to more difficult concepts. In the final year of the intervention, supplemental practice is added to the teacher-led sessions, where students are provided with materials (e.g., word cards, small readers, activity pages) and encouraged to play reading games with others or read aloud with someone else, such as a family member or higher-performing peer. Activities are designed to target the needs of individual students and are closely monitored by teachers who provide accountability, encouragement, and feedback on implementation.
Students with Intellectual Disability (IQs in the range of 40 to 80) have difficulty with learning and transferring new information to other subjects, making it particularly hard for these children to succeed in schools where typical interventions focus narrowly on isolated skills. The program uses an intensive, comprehensive, and individualized approach to reading instruction so that students learn to process the internal structure of printed and spoken words and develop basic sentence fluency and reading comprehension skills.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
The one study Blueprints has reviewed (Study 1) meets Blueprints evidentiary standards (specificity, evaluation quality, impact, dissemination readiness). The study was done by the developer.
Study 1
Allor et al. (2014) conducted a randomized control trial of 141 students with IQs between 40 and 80 in up to 15 schools in an urban, public school district in the Southwest United States. At baseline, students were randomly assigned within school to the intervention (N= 76) or control (N= 65) groups. As students dropped out of the study (N= 41) due to providing incomplete data, moving, or developing severe medical problems, new students were added. In the 2nd year 20 students were added, in the 3rd year 13 students were added, and in the final year 8 students joined the study. Assessments were administered when students entered the study and at the end of each academic year.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Allor et al. (2014) found that, relative to controls, children participating in the 4-year program showed significant improvement in 11 of 12 outcomes related to phonological processing, vocabulary, phonemic decoding, and word identification and fluency.
Primary Evidence Base for Certification
Study 1
Allor et al. (2014) found that, relative to controls, children participating in the 4-year intervention improved outcomes measuring:
Study 1 (Allor et al., 2014) found that the intervention had a medium-large effect on reading comprehension (d = .69).
One study meets Blueprints standards for high-quality methods with strong evidence of program impact (i.e., "certified" by Blueprints): Study 1 (Allor et al., 2014). The study sample included elementary school students with intellectual disabilities. The study took place in a Southwestern, urban public school district and compared the treatment group to an instruction-as-usual control group.
Blueprints: Promising
Contact for Materials or Sales Rep:
McGraw-Hill Education
www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/MKTSP-UTU01M0.related.html
Contact for Training:
The Institute for Evidence-Based Education
Southern Methodist University
PO Box 750381
Dallas, TX 75275-0381
Email: iebe@smu.edu
Phone: 214-768-8400
Fax: 214-768-8700
Web: www.smu.edu/evidencebasededucation
Web: www.smu.edu/Simmons/Research/IEBE
Certified Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Al Otaiba, S. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs? Exceptional Children, 80(3), 287-306.
Summary
Allor et al. (2014) conducted a randomized control trial of 141 students with IQs between 40 and 80 in up to 15 schools in an urban, public school district in the Southwest United States. At baseline, students were randomly assigned within school to the intervention (N= 76) or control (N= 65) groups. New students were added as students dropped out of the study (N= 41) due to providing incomplete data, moving, or developing severe medical problems. In the second year 20 students were added, in the third year 13 students were added, and in the final year eight students joined the study. Assessments were administered when students entered the study and at the end of each academic year.
Allor et al. (2014) found that, relative to controls, children participating in the 4-year intervention improved outcomes measuring:
Evaluation Methodology
Design
The study used a randomized control trial over 4 years in up to 15 public schools in a large, Southwestern, urban public school district and 1 private school for students with special needs. Initially, 141 1st through 4th grade students with IQs in the borderline range (70-80), mild range (56-69), and moderate range (40-55) for Intellectual Disability were recruited and randomized within school and IQ range to intervention (N= 76) or control (N= 65) conditions. Six teachers certified in special education and 4 part-time instructors trained in general education provided the intervention.
Students in the control group received typical general education or special education instruction in accordance with their individualized learning plans. Since students were randomized within school and IQ range, class sizes were reduced for control group children when treatment group students were removed for the intervention, which may have provided an atypical advantage to the children in the control group.
As students dropped out of the study (N= 41) due to not completing the full academic year, moving, or developing severe medical problems, new students were added to replace the dropouts. In the 2nd year 20 students were added, in the 3rd year 13 students were added, and in the final year 8 students joined the study. Assessments were administered within two weeks of students entering the study and at the end of each academic year through the 4th year that the intervention was administered, at which time about 47% of participants (N= 66) had stayed in the program for all 4 years. Those remaining in the study at the end of year 4 completed two additional measures for listening and reading comprehension. Because students were continually recruited as others dropped out, the analytic sample included 141 students participating in the program for various lengths of time (although the study did not list exact sample sizes for each year).
Measures
All reliabilities were established with a "norm" population that included no or very few children with Intellectual Disability.
Pretest and Annual Measures: The study used 5 different instruments to measure students' skill in several areas of phonological processing, vocabulary, reading, and language usage and comprehension at baseline and year end: 1) The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing subscales for Blending Words, Blending Nonwords, and Segmenting words (Cronbach's alpha= .83 to .95); 2) The Expressive Vocabulary Test (alpha= .90 to .98); 3) The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (alpha= .91 to .98); 4) The Test of Word Reading Efficiency subtests for Phenomic Decoding Efficiency and Sight Word Efficiency (alpha= .95 and .96, respectively); and 5) The Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery- Revised subtests for Listening Comprehension, Letter-Word Identification (real word reading), Word Attack (nonsense word reading), and Passage Comprehension (alpha= .81 to .92).
Additional Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) were used to monitor progress according to reading and language skill standards for 1st graders, regardless of actual student grade placement. These measures were administered once a month during the school year. Three subscales were used: 1) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (number of phonemes correctly segmented), 2) Nonsense Word Fluency (number of letter sounds correctly identified), and 3) Oral Reading Fluency (number of words correctly identified in a passage intended for 1st graders). The study states that "reliability coefficients ranged from .72 to .92 on single probes and .91 to .98 on the means of multiple probes."
4th Year Measures: Two measures were collected only at the end of the final year of the program to determine student achievement at the conclusion of the program: The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test- Second Edition subscales for 1) Listening Comprehension and 2) Reading Comprehension (alpha= .80 to .95).
Sample
Students participating in the program averaged 7.5 years of age and included more boys than girls. About a quarter of students identified as White, with over two-thirds identifying as either Black or Hispanic. Nearly 40% qualified for free lunch, and the majority (> 50%) ordinarily received the standard general education curriculum.
Analysis
Multilevel growth curve models were used to determine whether changes over time in language and reading outcomes differed between the intervention and control groups while accounting for repeated observations within individuals and the length of time that individuals spent in the program. The analyses intrinsically accounted for outcomes at baseline (with the exception of the 2 measures collected only at the end of the 4th year, which were analyzed using analysis of covariance) and all models controlled for IQ at baseline.
As required for intent-to-treat analyses, all available data were used and it appears that the authors attempted to follow and continue the intervention for students who changed schools within the study period.
Outcomes
Implementation Fidelity: Teachers were observed, on average, three times per year and rated on lesson pacing, student engagement and mastery, error corrections, and material readiness. Average fidelity ranged from 67% to 89% with a mean of 82%. Treatment students received between 19 and 134 weeks of instruction, with the average student attending for 95 weeks.
Baseline Equivalence: Groups were equivalent on baseline sociodemographic factors and IQ range, but baseline equivalence of study outcomes was not assessed.
Differential Attrition: There was no assessment of differential attrition.
Posttest: The intervention group improved on 11 of 12 outcomes over the 4-year period, relative to controls. All 4 measures of phonological processing, both measures of vocabulary, all 3 measures of phonemic decoding, and 2 of 3 word identification and fluency measures showed improvement in the intervention group over the control group. Only letter-word identification as measured by the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery was not improved.