Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Apr 8.
Published in final edited form as: School Psych Rev. 2010;39(1):3–21.

Table 1.

Pretest and Post-Test Performance on Reading Measures for Treatment Groups

Measure Group n Pre M Pre SD FU M FU SD d CI F p
Letter-Word Identification COMP 106 92.80 12.0 94.35 12.1 +0.15 −0.09 to +0.38 3.74 .054
Tier 2 195 93.04 11.3 96.06 11.4
Word Attacka COMP 106 96.67 10.8 96.44 9.5 +0.15 −0.08 to +0.39 6.85 .009
Tier 2 195 96.01 10.2 98.00 10.4
Spellinga,b COMP 106 92.80 12.0 92.75 15.2 +0.22 −0.01 to +0.46 6.31 .013
Tier 2 194 93.10 11.3 95.94 13.6
TAKS COMP 106 2.012.7 102.0 2,150.7 174.6 +0.18 −0.06 to +0.43 1.92 .167
Tier 2 176 2.020.0 94.5 2,182.6 171.8
Reading Comprehension COMP 114 88.37 8.8 88.32 8.4 +.0.06 −0.16 to +0.29 <1 ns
Tier 2 212 89.39 9.1 88.87 8.4
Passage Comprehension COMP 106 87.04 12.0 87.47 11.6 +0.19 −0.03 to +0.42 3.26 .072
Tier 2 195 87.83 9.4 89.35 8.9
Sight Word Efficiency COMP 106 91.74 10.9 93.61 11.2 +0.30 +0.06 to +0.54 1.93 .166
Tier 2 195 94.30 10.0 96.85 10.6
Phonemic Decoding Efficiency COMP 106 94.42 15.4 94.87 13.2 + 0.19 −0.04 to +0.43 3.29 .071
Tier 2 195 95.38 13.1 97.47 13.5
Mazes COMP 114 15.05 6.1 24.51 8.5 + 0.09 −0.14 to +0.32 <1 ns
Tier 2 211 16.12 6.3 25.32 9.2
Sentence Reading Efficiency COMP l14 85.25 11.7 91.20 12.7 +0.13 −0.10 to +0.36 <1 ns
Tier 2 211 86.82 10.1 92.90 13.0
Word List Fluency COMP 109 67.83 28.3 77.65 28.7 +0.14 −0.09 to +0.37 2.38 .124
Tier 2 200 69.21 22.6 81.28 24.6
Passage Fluency COMP 109 101.64 30.0 124.33 34.4 +0.24 +0.00 to +0.47 <1 ns
Tier 2 200 109.68 29.1 131.95 31.0

Note. COMP =comparison group: Tier 2 =intervention group: Pre M = mean of pretest performance: FU M = unadjusted mean of post-test performanc: d effect size difference between COMP and Tier 2 at post-test, based on unadjusted means; C1= confidence interval of effect size; F = statistical test of the difference between adjused means of COMP and Tier 2 subgroups (df [1,N-3], where N is comp +Tier 2); Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Spelling, and Passage Comprehension =subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson—III Tests of Academic Achievement, where reported means are standard scores; TAKS = Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, the state accountability measure, where means are scaled scores (a score of 2,100 is passing): Reading Comprehension = subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation where reported means are standard scores; Sight Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency - subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency, reported in standard scores: Mazes = softest from AIMSweb, reported in terms of the number of target words correctly identified in 3 min; Sentence Reading Efficiency = Test of Sentence Reading Efficiency, where scores are reported in standard scores; Word List Fluency and Passage Fluency = investigator-created measures, reported in terms of words correctly read in 1 min, equaled for form effects, and averaged over all the stories read (five passages were read at pretest, three passages were read at post-test, and three word lists were read at both pretest and post-test).

a

F values are for the (centered) treatment effect in the context of the observed significant interaction of pretest and treatment group.

b

Pretest means are for the covariate utilized (Letter-Word Identification standard score). Interactions involving site, age, and additional instruction are not reflected above, but are reported in text.