Maintaining the Power of One-on-One in a Group of Four:

Early Steps Quads

Research Question: Readers

Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention formats provide differential benefits to struggling readers?

Is 1-on-4 grouping format as effective as 1-on-1 for improving the performance of struggling readers?

Research Question: Educators

Can non-certified paraprofessionals deliver 1:4 reading intervention as effectively as certified teacher when supervised by an intervention specialist?

Methods: Readers N = 214 14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools Public: rural & urban Grade 1 Diverse SES, ethnicity,

achievement Randomly assigned to 1-on-1 or

quad

Methods: Educators

N = 47 Classroom teachers, literacy

coaches, paraprofessionals, UURC staff

Each pre-certified in Early Steps Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4 Each was observed 7 times over

year

Methods: Intervention 45 minute lessons 80 lessons over year’s time

Methods: Pre-Post Measures Criterion-referenced

Word recognition automaticity (Flash) Passage reading level (RLA) Spelling

Norm-referenced Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA) Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC) DIBELS (NWF-CLS, NWF-WWR, ORF)

Methods: RLA Criteria Acc.

(%) Rate

(wpm)

Mid GK 6 0 End GK 40 15

Early G1 85 20 Mid G1 90 30 End G1 90 40 Mid G2 93 65 End G2 93 90

Early G3 93 80 Mid G3 95 90 End G3 95 110

Methods: Analyses 3-Level HLM

School, Tutor, Student Certified/Non – Level-2 Variable

Regression analysis Maximum likelihood (not OLS)

Model reduction method Run full model w/ all covariates Remove non-significant covariates Retain variables of interest

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

Single Quad Baseline

RLA M

(SD) .61

(.37) .81

(.23)

Exit RLA

M (SD)

1.63

(.39) 1.78

(.45)

Average Gain

M (SD)

1.02 (.43)

.97 (.42)

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onRLA

% Gain Single Quad < 0.5 11.6% 14.6%

≥ 1.0 62.8% 64.9%

≥ 2.0 2.3% 3.5%

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost RLA

Variable SE p Intercept 1.300 .097 .000

Pretest RLA Score .558 .107 .000 Certified/Non -.023 .072 .749 Group/Single .032 .067 .624

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onFlash

Single Quad Baseline

Flash M

(SD) .03

(.20) .11

(.36)

Exit Flash

M (SD)

1.69

(.70) 1.89

(.70)

Average Gain

M (SD)

1.65 (.67)

1.78 (.66)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Flash

Variable SE p Intercept 1.674 .111 .000

Pretest Flash Score .723 .135 .000 Certified/Non .005 .113 .962 Group/Single .133 .102 .193

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onSpelling (DSA)

Single Quad Baseline Spelling

M (SD)

18.21 (7.40)

22.27

(4.42)

Exit Spelling

M (SD)

33.14

(3.46) 34.73

(3.65)

Gain 14.93 12.46

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Spelling

Variable SE p Intercept 29.535 1.854 .000

Pretest Spelling Score .306 .049 .000 Pretest RLA Score 2.443 .861 .005 Number of Sessions -.038 .021 .063

Certified/Non -.576 .530 .283 Group/Single -.123 .535 .818

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Word Attack

Single Quad Baseline

Word Attack M

(SD) [GE]

3.30 (3.64) [1.3]

4.88

(3.64) [1.3]

Exit Word Attack

M (SD) [GE]

13.86

(7.65) [2.5]

17.09

(7.17) [3.0]

Gain 1.2 1.7

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost WRMT Word Attack

Variable SE p Intercept 10.360 1.071 .000

Pretest Word Attack Score 1.051 .115 .000 Certified/Non .373 .842 .660 Group/Single 1.539 1.052 .145

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onWRMT Passage Comprehension

Single Quad Baseline Passage

Comp.

M (SD) [GE]

2.63 (3.00) [K.6]

3.51

(2.71) [K.7]

Exit Passage

Comp.

M (SD) [GE]

15.23

(7.42) [1.6]

17.91

(6.46) [1.8]

Gain 1.0 1.1

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost Passage Comprehension

Variable SE p Intercept 10.492 1.424 .000

Pretest Passage Comp. Score .752 .155 .000 Pretest RLA Score 4.007 1.655 .016

Certified/Non .872 .880 .328 Group/Single 1.274 1.045 .328

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)

Single Quad Baseline

DIBELS CLS M

(SD) 14.07

(10.62) 17.47

(12.86)

Exit DIBELS CLS

M (SD)

50.67

(21.86) 63.48

(26.91)

Gain 36.60 46.01

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds

Variable SE p Intercept 31.285 17.138 .091

Number of Sessions .006 .200 .976 # of Sessions * Certified/Non .706 .276 .012

Certified/Non -48.067 22.331 .037 Pretest CLS Score 1.019 .194 .000

Group/Single 5.952 4.376 .176

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .037

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)

Single Quad Baseline

DIBELS WWR M

(SD) .47

(1.93) .96

(4.27)

Exit DIBELS WWR

M (SD)

10.67

(9.53) 16.88

(11.12)

Gain 10.20 15.92

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Whole Words Read

Variable SE p Intercept -14.260 5.053 .015

Number of Sessions .199 .058 .001 Certified/Non 4.361 1.565 .008

Pretest CLS Score .473 .084 .000 Pretest WWR Score .059 .178 .741

Group/Single 2.640 1.822 .149

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500

Singleton vs. Quad Performance onDIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)

Single Quad Exit

DIBELS ORF M

(SD) 33.70

(18.54) 40.32

(20.02)

Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients forPost DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency

Variable SE p Intercept 18.572 4.374 .001

Pretest RLA Score 23.960 4.651 .000 Certified/Non 1.713 3.229 .598 Group/Single 1.868 2.844 .512

c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001

c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032

Discussion: Readers Replicates Vaughn et al. 2006

No advantage for 1:1 group size in comparison to 1:4 (quads)

Discussion: Educators Paraprofessionals were able to

deliver quad reading intervention as effectively

…when supervised by an intervention specialist

Implications for Ed Practice Growing evidence that 1:4 is an

effective grouping format for intervention

more efficient use of resources allows more students to receive intervention

Implications for Ed Practice Trained, supervised

paraprofessionals can effectively extend the reach of classroom teacher and reading specialists in helping struggling readers become more successful

Implications for Ed Practice

>1 group size requires management skill on part of educator

Immutable benefits of 1:1 grouping Professional development opportunity

to focus solely on reading development

Students who “don’t fit” a group Educators who “don’t fit” with groups

Future Research Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6

advantage?