description: tags: techappendix01 233

8/14/2019 description: tags: techappendix01 233

1/9
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/fluencyformula/pdfs/FF_EffectivessReport.pdf


2/9

6WWC Intervention Report Fluency Formula June 11, 2007

Appendix A2.1 Outcome measures in the fluency domain

Characteristic Description

Edformation Oral Fluency

Assessment (OFA)

This test measures the number of words correct per minute (WCPM) that students read using three brief grade-level passages (200-word minimum). These passages include

both fiction and nonfiction text. The norms for this test are updated by Edformation each school year1 (as cited in Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2005).

1. The study authors reported both raw and normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores. The WWC used the raw score results.

Appendix A2.2 Outcome measures in the comprehension domain

Characteristic Description

Woodcock-Johnson III Testsof Achievement: Passage

Comprehension subtest

This standardized test measures childrens ability to match words and pictures of objects the words stand for and to identify missing key words in the reading passage (ascited in Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2005).


3/9
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/mismatch.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdf


4/9
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/mismatch.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdf


5/9
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/mismatch.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdf


6/9


Appendix A5.1 Fluency Formularating for the fluency domain

The WWC rates an interventions eects in a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible eects, potentially negative, or negative.1

For the outcome domain o uency, the WWC rated Fluency Formula as having potentially positive eects. It did not meet the criteria or the positive eects

because there was only one study. The remaining ratings (mixed eects, no discernible eects, potentially negative eects, negative eects) were not considered

because Fluency Formula was assigned the highest applicable rating.

Rating received

Potentially positive effects: Evidence o a positive eect with no overriding contrary evidence.

Criterion 1: At least one study showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eect.

Met. The one study reviewed showed substantively important positive eects.

and

Criterion 2: No studies showing a statistically signifcant or substantively importantnegative eect and ewer or the same number o studies showingindeterminate

eects than showing statistically signifcant or substantively importantpositive eects.

Met. No study showed statistically signifcant or substantively important negative eects or indeterminate eects.

Other ratings considered

Positive effects: Strong evidence o a positive eect with no overriding contrary evidence.

Criterion 1: Two or more studies showing statistically signifcant positive eects, at least one o which met WWC evidence standards or a strong design.

Not met. Only one study met WWC evidence standards.

and

Criterion 2: No studies showing statistically signifcant or substantively importantnegative eects.

Met. No studies showed statistically signifcant or substantively important negative eects.

1. For rating purposes, the WWC considers the statistical signifcance o individual outcomes and the domain-level eect. The WWC also considers the size o the domain-level eect or ratings o

potentially positive or potentially negative eects. See the WWC Intervention Rating Schemeor a complete description.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdf


7/9


Appendix A5.2 Fluency Formularating for the comprehension domain

The WWC rates an interventions eects in a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible eects, potentially negative, or negative.1

For the outcome domain o comprehension, the WWC rated Fluency Formula as having potentially negative eects. It did not meet the criteria or other ratings

(positive eects, potentially positive eects, mixed eects, no discernible eects, and negative eects) because the single study that met WWC standards showed

substantively important negative eects.

Rating received

Potentially negative effects: Evidence o a negative eect with no overriding contrary evidence

Criterion 1: At least one study showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important negative eect.

Met. The one study reviewed showed substantively important negative eects.

and

Criterion 2: No studies showing a statistically signifcant or substantively importantpositive eect, or more studies showing statistically signifcant or substantively

importantnegative eects than showing statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eects.

Met. No studies showed statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eects.

Other ratings considered

Positive effects: Strong evidence o a positive eect with no overriding contrary evidence.

Criterion 1: Two or more studies showing statistically signifcant positive eects, at least one o which met WWC evidence standards or a strong design.

Not met. Only one study met WWC evidence standards.

and

Criterion 2: No studies showing statistically signifcant or substantively importantnegative eects.

Not met. One study showed substantively important negative eects.

Potentially positive effects: Evidence o a positive eect with no overriding contrary evidence.

Criterion 1: At least one study showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eect.

Not met. No studies showed statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eects.

and

Criterion 2: No studies showing a statistically signifcant or substantively importantnegative eect and ewer or the same number o studies showingindeterminate

eects than showing statistically signifcant or substantively importantpositive eects.


(continued)


8/9


Mixed effects: Evidence o inconsistent eects as demonstrated through either o the ollowing criteria.

Criterion 1: At least one study showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eect, and at least one study showing a statistically signifcant

or substantively importantnegative eect, but no more such studies than the number showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eect.Not met. No studies showed statistically signifcant or substantively important positive eects.

or

Criterion 2: At least one study showing a statistically signifcant or substantively important eect, and more studies showing an indeterminate eect than showing

a statistically signifcant or substantively important eect.

Not met. One study showed substantively important negative eects and no study showed indeterminate eects.

No discernible effects: No afrmative evidence o eects.

Criterion 1: None o the studies shows a statistically signifcant or substantively important eect, either positive ornegative.


1. For rating purposes, the WWC considers the statistical signifcance o individual outcomes and the domain-level eect. The WWC also considers the size o the domain-level eect or ratings o

potentially positive or potentially negative eects. See theWWC Intervention Rating Schemeor a complete description.

Appendix A5.2 Fluency Formularating for the comprehension domain (continued)
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdfhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/rating_scheme.pdf


9/9


Appendix A6 Extent of evidence rating by domain

Sample size

Outcome domain Number of studies Schools Students Extent of evidence1

Alphabetics 0 0 0 naComprehension 1 5 128 Small

Fluency 1 5 128 Small

General reading achievement 0 0 0 na

na = not applicable/not studied

1. A rating o moderate to large requires at least two studies and two schools across studies in one domain and a total sample size across studies o at least 350 students or 14 classrooms.

Otherwise, the rating is small.

Documents

description: tags: techappendix01 233