NCEE 2010-4015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Effectiveness of Selected 

Supplemental Reading 

Comprehension Interventions: 

Findings From Two Student 

Cohorts 
Effectiveness of Selected 

Supplemental Reading 

Comprehension Interventions: 

Findings From Two Student 

Cohorts 

May 2010 

Susanne James-Burdumy 

John Deke 

Julieta Lugo-Gil 

Nancy Carey 

Alan Hershey 

Mathematica Policy Research 

Russell Gersten 

Rebecca Newman-Gonchar 

Joseph Dimino 

Kelly Haymond 

RG Research Group 

Bonnie Faddis 

RMC Research Corporation 

Audrey Pendleton 

Project Officer 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCEE 2010-4015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

John Q. Easton 

Director 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance 

John Q. Easton 

Acting Commissioner 

May 2010 

The report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences under Contract No. ED-01-C0039/0010. The project 

officer is Audrey Pendleton in the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

IES evaluation reports present objective information on the conditions of implementation and impacts of the programs 

being evaluated. IES evaluation reports do not include conclusions or recommendations or views with regard to actions 

policymakers or practitioners should take in light of the findings in the reports. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: James-Burdumy, S., Deke, J., Lugo-Gil, J., Carey, N., 

Hershey, A., Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., Haymond, K., and Faddis, B. (2010). Effectiveness of 

Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Findings From Two Student Cohorts (NCEE 2010-4015). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education. 

To order copies of this report, 

• Write to ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. 

• Call in your request toll free to 1-877-4ED-Pubs. If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 800-872-

5327 (800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter 

(TTY) should call 800-437-0833. 

• Fax your request to 703-605-6794. 

• Order online at www.edpubs.gov. 

This report also is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee. 

Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113.
iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many individuals, organizations, and agencies contributed to the Reading Comprehension 

Evaluation. The members of the evaluation’s Technical Work Group—Donna Alvermann, Isabel 

Beck, Mark Berends, Thomas Cook, David Francis, Larry Hedges, Timothy Shanahan, Joseph 

Torgesen, and Joanna Williams—imparted valuable input at critical junctures. 

 

At Mathematica Policy Research, important contributions were made by Annette Luyegu, 

Valerie Williams, Melissa Dugger, Irene Crawley, Sue Golden, and Season Bedell-Boyle, who 

helped manage the data collection activities; Arabinda Hazarika, Mark Beardsley, and Neil 

DeLeon, who developed and maintained the data collection databases; Mason DeCamillis, 

Elizabeth Petraglia, Ravaris Moore, Carol Razafindrakoto, and Maricar Mabutas, who 

programmed the impact models; Sally Atkins-Burnett and Aaron Douglas, who gave crucial 

psychometric assistance; Sonya Vartivarian, Sue Ahmed, and Amang Sukasih, who provided 

statistics support; and Cindy George, William Garrett, and Jill Miller, who were instrumental in 

editing and producing the report. We acknowledge the support and advice of David Myers and 

Jerry West, former study directors. 

At RMC Research, we thank Steve Murray for his leadership in managing the competition to 

select the reading interventions and facilitating the study's pilot year, Wendy Graham for 

overseeing the team of RMC observers, and Margaret Beam for serving as a liaison to developers 

during the pilot and implementation years and for reviewing program training, classroom 

instruction, and materials. We are grateful to Lauren Liang at the University of Utah, who had a 

major role in developing the fidelity and observation measures and contributing to the 

development of the ETS assessments. At the University of Texas, we benefited from Sharon 

Vaughn’s help in recruiting schools and addressing reading issues throughout the study, and 

Meaghan Edmond’s assistance in creating the observation forms and in conducting the 

observation training. We thank Greg Roberts of Evaluation Research Services and Mary Jo 

Taylor at RG Research Group for their support in recruiting schools. 

We appreciate the willingness of reading developers to engage in a large-scale, rigorous 

evaluation and to contribute their perspectives and insights during interviews. We could not have 

conducted this study without the districts, schools, and teachers who agreed to participate in the 

study, use the reading curricula, permit observation of their classroom instruction, and share their 

views. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
v 

DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

The research team for this evaluation consists of a prime contractor, Mathematica Policy 

Research, and two major subcontractors: RG Research Group and RMC Research Corporation. 

None of these organizations or their key staff members have financial interests that could be 

affected by findings from the study. None of the members of the Technical Working Group, 

convened by the research team to provide advice and guidance, have financial interests that 

could be affected by findings from the study. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
vii 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... xxiii 

 I INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1

A. PAST READING RESEARCH HAS FUELED USEFUL 

 RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT LEFT QUESTIONS UNANSWERED ................4

B. STUDY DESIGN: FOCUS ON RIGOR AND UNDERSTANDING 

 INTERVENTIONS ..................................................................................................6

1. First-Year Study Design ......................................................................................7

2. Second-Year Study Design ...............................................................................24

 II IMPLEMENTATION FINDINGS ...............................................................................37

A. INTERVENTION FEATURES .............................................................................38

B. TEACHER TRAINING AND SUPPORT .............................................................45

C. OBSERVED FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION.............................................48

1. Project CRISS ....................................................................................................50

2. Read for Real .....................................................................................................56

3. ReadAbout .........................................................................................................68

4. Reading for Knowledge .....................................................................................73

D. READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES ...................73

E. INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS’ TIME 

 ALLOCATION ......................................................................................................98

 III COMPARING POST-TEST IMPACTS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND 

 COHORTS OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ...........................................................105

A. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS ......................................................106

B. TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS WERE SIMILAR AT 

 BASELINE ..........................................................................................................108
viii 

Chapter Page 

C. IMPACTS ON STUDENT TEST SCORES .......................................................117

D. SIX OF 288 DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT SUBGROUP IMPACTS 

 ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ............................................................123

E. NONE OF THE TEACHER PRACTICES SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES 

 ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ............................................................125

 IV COMPARING POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP IMPACTS FOR THE 

 FIRST COHORT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ..................................................127

A. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING FOLLOW-UP IMPACTS..............................128

B. EXPERIENCES OF THE FIRST COHORT OF TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STUDENTS WERE SIMILAR DURING THE SECOND 

 YEAR OF THE STUDY .....................................................................................129

C. IMPACTS ON FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES OF SIXTH-GRADE 

 COHORT 1 STUDENTS .....................................................................................130

D. EIGHT OF 360 SUBGROUP ANALYSES YIELD STATISTICALLY 

 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ..................................................................................136

E. FIVE OF 60 TEACHER PRACTICES SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES 

 ARE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ............................................................137

 V ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE AND NONEXPERIMENTAL ANALYSES .........139

A. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON CLASSROOM PRACTICES ................139

B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASSROOM PRACTICES AND 

 TEST SCORES ....................................................................................................147

C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EFFICACY AND 

 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEST SCORES .............................157

D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING TIME AND TEST SCORES ...........160

E. CORRELATION OF IMPACTS AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS .........163

 VI SUMMARY ................................................................................................................167
ix 

Chapter Page 

 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................171

 APPENDIX A: RANDOM ASSIGNMENT

 APPENDIX B: FLOW OF SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS THROUGH THE 

 STUDY

 APPENDIX C: OBTAINING PARENT CONSENT

 APPENDIX D: IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE SIZES AND RESPONSE RATES

 APPENDIX F: CREATION AND RELIABILITY OF CLASSROOM 

 OBSERVATION AND TEACHER SURVEY MEASURES

 APPENDIX G: ESTIMATING IMPACTS

 APPENDIX H: ASSESSING ROBUSTNESS OF THE IMPACTS

 APPENDIX I: KEY DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR CLASSROOM 

 OBSERVATION AND FIDELITY DATA

 APPENDIX J: UNADJUSTED MEANS

 APPENDIX K: IMPACT TABLES INCLUDING P-VALUES THAT HAVE 

 NOT BEEN ADJUSTED FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS

 APPENDIX L: SUBGROUP IMPACT TABLES
This page is intentionally left blank.
xi 

TABLES 

Table Page 

 I.1 NUMBER OF STUDY DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND 

 STUDENTS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN YEAR 1 ............................................................11 

 I.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF DISTRICTS IN THE STUDY ............................................11 

 I.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STUDY ........12 

 I.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STUDY, 

COMPARED TO SCHOOLWIDE TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED 

 STATES ..........................................................................................................................14 

 I.5 SCHEDULE OF DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ................................................16 

 I.6 FEATURES OF TESTS USED IN THE STUDY ..........................................................21 

 I.7 NUMBER OF STUDY DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND 

 STUDENTS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN YEAR 2 ............................................................28 

 I.8 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIFTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

 OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY.................................................................29 

 I.9 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIFTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY, COMPARED TO SCHOOLWIDE 

TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES ..........................................................30 

 I.10 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE SIXTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

 OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY.................................................................31 

 I.11 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE SIXTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY, COMPARED TO SCHOOLWIDE 

TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES ..........................................................32 

 I.12 FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN YEARS 1 AND 2, 

 BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ............................................................................33 

 II.1 SUMMARY OF READING COMPREHENSION PROGRAMS .................................39 

 II.2 PROGRAM COSTS .......................................................................................................43 

 II.3 ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS FOR TYPICAL SMALL, MEDIUM, AND 

 LARGE DISTRICTS ......................................................................................................44 
xii 

Table Page 

 II.4 SUMMARY OF TEACHER TRAINING ......................................................................46 

 II.5 TEACHER TRAINING PARTICIPATION ...................................................................47 

 II.6 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING 

 PRACTICES FOR THE PROJECT CRISS CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 ....................51 

 II.7 OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS 

 CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 ..........................................................................................53 

 II.8 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS 

 CURRICULUM IN YEARS 1 AND 2 ...........................................................................54 

 II.9 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS 

 CURRICULUM, BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM ..........57 

II.10 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING 

 PRACTICES FOR THE READ FOR REAL CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2..................59 

II.11 OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL 

 CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 ..........................................................................................62 

II.12 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL 

 CURRICULUM IN YEARS 1 AND 2 ...........................................................................63 

II.13 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL 

 CURRICULUM, BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM ..........65 

II.14 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING 

 PRACTICES FOR THE READABOUT CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 ........................69 

II.15 OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT 

 CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 ..........................................................................................70 

II.16 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT CURRICULUM 

 IN YEARS 1 AND 2.......................................................................................................71 

II.17 FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT 

 CURRICULUM, BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM ..........72 

II.18 EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION ITEMS CONTAINED IN 

 STUDY SCALES ...........................................................................................................76 

II.19 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS IN 

YEARS 1 AND 2 ............................................................................................................78 
xiii 

Table Page 

II.20 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY 

 YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR 

 ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE TRADITIONAL INTERACTION SCALE.................81 

II.21 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY 

YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR 

ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE READING STRATEGY GUIDANCE SCALE ..........84 

II.22 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY 

YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR 

ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT SCALE .................86 

II.23 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY 

YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING 

TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY FOR TWO YEARS WITH 

TEACHERS NEW TO THE STUDY ............................................................................90 

II.24 DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICE SCALES BETWEEN 

TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING SCALES IN YEARS 

1 AND 2 FOR FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY 

FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS ............................................................................93 

II.25 DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUAL CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN 

TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING INDIVIDUAL 

PRACTICES IN YEARS 1 AND 2 FOR FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS 

PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS ................95 

II.26 TEACHER-REPORTED TIME ALLOCATION AS PROPORTION OF 

 SCHOOL DAY, COHORT 2 FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS...................................99 

II.27 TIME SPENT USING INFORMATIONAL TEXT AND TIME SPENT USING 

 INTERVENTION IN COHORT 2 FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS ........................101 

II.28 TEACHER-REPORTED REDUCTION IN TIME SPENT ON CLASSROOM 

 ACTIVITIES DUE TO USE OF TREATMENT CURRICULUM, COHORT 2 

 FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS .................................................................................102 

III.1 READING CURRICULA IN USE JUST BEFORE 2006–2007 SCHOOL YEAR ....109 

III.2 BASELINE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STATUS, YEAR 1 ....................................................................................111 

III.3 BASELINE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STATUS, SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN FIFTH-GRADE 

 COMPONENT IN SECOND YEAR ............................................................................113 
xiv 

Table Page 

III.4 BASELINE TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STATUS, YEAR 1 ....................................................................................114 

III.5 BASELINE STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STATUS, COHORT 1 ..............................................................................115 

III.6 BASELINE STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL STATUS, COHORT 2 ..............................................................................116 

III.7 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE COHORTS 1 AND 2 ..........118 

III.8 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE COHORT 1 AND 2 

 STUDENTS WITH TEACHERS IN THE STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE 

 YEARS .........................................................................................................................120 

IV.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY SIXTH-GRADE 

 STUDENTS IN YEAR 2, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS 

 OF STUDENTS ............................................................................................................131 

IV.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS WHO TAUGHT SIXTH-GRADE 

 STUDENTS IN YEAR 2, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS 

 OF STUDENTS ............................................................................................................132 

IV.3 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES 

 BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COHORT 1 

 STUDENTS ..................................................................................................................133 

 V.1a DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING 

 COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITEMS ......141 

 V.1b DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING 

 COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITEMS ......144 

 V.1c DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING 

 COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITEMS ......145 

 V.1d DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING 

 COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITEMS ......146 

 V.2 REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPOSITORY 

READING COMPREHENSION (ERC) SCALES AND STUDENT POST-TEST 

SCORES .......................................................................................................................149 
xv 

Table Page 

 V.3 REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPOSITORY 

 READING COMPREHENSION (ERC) INSTRUMENT ITEMS AND 

 STUDENT POST-TEST SCORES...............................................................................152 

 V.4 REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHER TRAITS 

 AND STUDENT POST-TEST SCORES .....................................................................158 

 V.5 REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN TIME DEVOTED 

TO READING INSTRUCTION AND POST-TEST SCORES ...................................161 

 V.6 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN BLOCK-LEVEL TEST SCORE 

IMPACTS AND BLOCK-LEVEL MEANS OF SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS ...164 

 B.1 FLOW OF SCHOOLS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 1, COHORT 1, GRADE 

 FIVE) ............................................................................................................................ B.3 

 B.1a FLOW OF SCHOOLS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 2, COHORT 2, GRADE 

 FIVE) ............................................................................................................................ B.4 

 B.1b FLOW OF SCHOOLS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 2, COHORT 1, GRADE 

 SIX, FOLLOW UP) ...................................................................................................... B.5 

 B.2 FLOW OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 1) ....................... B.6 

 B.2a FLOW OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 2) ....................... B.7 

 B.2b FLOW OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS THROUGH STUDY (YEAR 2) ....................... B.8 

 C.1 CONSENT RATES, BY TYPE OF CONSENT .......................................................... C.4 

 C.2 CONSENT RATES, BY INTERVENTION ................................................................ C.5 

 D.1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR INTERVENTIONS: NUMBER OF 

 SCHOOL DAYS FROM START OF SCHOOL, BY DISTRICT ............................... D.3 

 E.1a TEACHER SURVEY SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, GRADE FIVE 

 TEACHERS .................................................................................................................. E.4 

 E.1b TEACHER SURVEY SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, GRADE SIX 

 TEACHERS .................................................................................................................. E.5 

 E.2 STUDENT SAMPLE.................................................................................................... E.6 

 E.3a STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, PRETEST .......................... E.7 
xvi 

Table Page 

 E.3b STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, POST-TEST ...................... E.9 

 E.3c STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, FOLLOW UP .................. E.12 

 E.4 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES .................. E.13 

 E.5 FIDELITY OBSERVATION SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES ........................ E.14 

 E.6 RESPONSE RATES FOR YEAR 2 TEACHER FORMS, GRADE FIVE 

 TEACHERS ................................................................................................................ E.15 

 F.1 PERCENT AGREEMENT RELIABILITY FOR ACTIVE INTERVALS, 

 BY ITEM ...................................................................................................................... F.4 

 F.2 ITEM RESPONSE MODEL DIFFICULTY PARAMETERS, STANDARD 

 ERRORS, OUTFIT AND INFIT STATISTICS, AND CORRECTED 

 ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS FOR ITEMS OF EACH SCALE ....................... F.10 

 F.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES 

 SCALE SCORES ........................................................................................................ F.12 

 F.4 RELIABILITY OF THE TEACHER EFFICACY OVERALL SCALE 

 AND SUBSCALES .................................................................................................... F.18 

 F.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND PERSON SEPARATION RELIABILITIES 

FOR THE OVERALL SCHOOL CULTURE SCALE AND SUBSCALES ............. F.20 

 F.6 PSYCHOMETRIC STATISTICS FOR SCHOOL CULTURE SUBSCALES ......... F.21 

 G.1 PROPORTION OF SAMPLE MISSING EACH COVARIATE, BY OUTCOME, 

 YEAR 2 ANALYSES ................................................................................................... G.7 

 G.2 PROPORTION OF STUDENTS WITH TEST SCORES IN YEAR 2, 

 BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION .......................................................................... G.9 

 G.3 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS 

 WITH GRADE POST-TEST SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ....... G.10 

 G.4 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS 

 WITH FOLLOW-UP GRADE SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ..... G.12 

 G.5 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS 

 WITH SOCIAL STUDIES READING COMPREHENSION POST-TEST 

 SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ....................................................... G.14 
xvii 

Table Page 

 G.6 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS 

WITH FOLLOW-UP SOCIAL STUDIES READING COMPREHENSION 

SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ....................................................... G.16 

 G.7 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS 

 WITH SCIENCE READING COMPREHENSION POST-TEST SCORES, 

 BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ........................................................................ G.18 

 G.8 AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS 

 WITH FOLLOW-UP SCIENCE READING COMPREHENSION SCORES, 

 BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION ........................................................................ G.20 

 G.9 BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS WITH AND 

 WITHOUT POST-TEST SCORES ............................................................................ G.22 

 G.10 BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITH AND 

 WITHOUT FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES ............................................................... G.24 

 H.1 SENSITIVITY OF IMPACT ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE 

 SPECIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................... H.4 

 H.2 COMPARISON OF BENCHMARK AND HLM MODELS. ..................................... H.6 

 H.3 DIFFERENCES IN SPRING TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL GROUPS, FOR STUDENTS WITH PRETEST AND POST-TEST 

 OR FOLLOW-UP SCORES ......................................................................................... H.7 

 H.4 DIFFERENCE IN SPRING CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN 

 TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP COHORT 2 TEACHERS, FOR 

 SCALES BASED ON SUMS OF TALLIES ACROSS OBSERVATION 

 INTERVALS ................................................................................................................ H.9 

 H.5 DIFFERENCES IN SPRING CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN 

 TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP COHORT 2 TEACHERS, FOR 

 TEACHING COMPREHENSION AND TEACHING VOCABULARY 

 SCALES. ..................................................................................................................... H.10 

 I.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING 

 COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITEMS, 

BASED ON THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES EACH PRACTICE WAS 

OBSERVED DURING THE 10-MINUTE OBSERVATION INTERVALS ............... I.3 

 I.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR PROJECT CRISS FIDELITY 

 OBSERVATION ITEMS .............................................................................................. I.7 
xviii 

Table Page 

 I.3 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR READ FOR REAL FIDELITY 

 OBSERVATION ITEMS .............................................................................................. I.8 

 I.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR READABOUT FIDELITY OBSERVATION 

 ITEMS.......................................................................................................................... I.11 

 I.5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FIDELITY OBSERVATION ITEMS FOR 

 READING FOR KNOWLEDGE DIRECT INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 

 DAYS ........................................................................................................................... I.12 

 I.6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FIDELITY OBSERVATION ITEMS FOR 

 READING FOR KNOWLEDGE COOPERATIVE GROUPS OBSERVATION 

 DAYS ........................................................................................................................... I.13 

 J.1 UNADJUSTED MEANS FOR TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS .............. J.3 

 K.1 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING FIFTH GRADE COHORTS 1 AND 2 

 WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS ........................... K.3 

 K.2 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

 CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE COHORT 1 AND 2 

 STUDENTS WITH TEACHERS IN THE STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE 

 YEARS WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS ............. K.5 

 K.3 DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES 

 BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COHORT 1 

 STUDENTS WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS ...... K.7 

 L.1 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE POST-TEST BETWEEN 

 SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS ...................................... L.3 

 L.2 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE GRADE POST-TEST BETWEEN 

 SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS ...................................... L.5 

 L.3 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SOCIAL STUDIES POST-TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS.................. L.7 

 L.4 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SCIENCE POST-TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS.................. L.9 

 L.5 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE FOLLOW-UP TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT........................................................... L.11 
xix 

Table Page 

 L.6 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE GRADE FOLLOW-UP TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT........................................................... L.13 

 L.7 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SOCIAL STUDIES FOLLOW-UP 

 TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT ................................................ L.15 

 L.8 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SCIENCE FOLLOW-UP 

 TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT ................................................ L.17 

 L.9 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE POST-TEST BETWEEN 

 SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS .................................... L.19 

 L.10 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE GRADE POST-TEST BETWEEN 

 SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS .................................... L.21 

 L.11 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SOCIAL STUDIES POST-TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS................ L.23 

 L.12 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SCIENCE POST-TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADERS................ L.25 

 L.13 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE FOLLOW-UP TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT........................................................... L.27 

 L.14 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE GRADE FOLLOW-UP TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT........................................................... L.29 

 L.15 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SOCIAL STUDIES FOLLOW-UP 

 TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT ................................................ L.31 

 L.16 DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE ETS SCIENCE FOLLOW-UP TEST 

 BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT........................................................... L.33 
This page is intentionally left blank.
xxi 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

 1 EFFECTS OF CURRICULA ON GRADE SCORES, COHORT 1 STUDENTS ... xxxiii 

 2 EFFECTS OF CURRICULA ON SOCIAL STUDIES READING 

 COMPREHENSION SCORES, COHORT 1 STUDENTS...................................... xxxiii 

 3 EFFECTS OF CURRICULA ON SCIENCE READING COMPREHENSION 

 SCORES, COHORT 1 STUDENTS......................................................................... xxxiv 

 4 EFFECTS OF CURRICULA ON COMPOSITE SCORES, COHORT 1 

 STUDENTS .............................................................................................................. xxxiv

 5 EFFECTS OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST GRADE SCORES OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ........................ xxxvi 

 6 EFFECTS OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST SOCIAL STUDIES READING COMPREHENSION SCORES 

 OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ............................................................................. xxxvi 

 7 EFFECTS OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST SCIENCE READING COMPREHENSION SCORES OF 

 FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS .................................................................................. xxxvii 

 8 EFFECTS OF SCHOOL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST COMPOSITE TEST SCORES OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS .... xxxvii 

 9 EFFECTS OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST GRADE SCORES OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ...................... xxxviii 

 10 EFFECTS OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST SOCIAL STUDIES READING COMPREHENSION SCORES 

 OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ........................................................................... xxxviii 

 11 EFFECTS OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST SCIENCE READING COMPREHENSION SCORES OF 

 FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ................................................................................... xxxix 

 12 EFFECTS OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULA ON 

 POST-TEST COMPOSITE TEST SCORES OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS ..... xxxix 
xxii 

Figure Page 

 F.1a LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE 

 OBSERVED AND TRADITIONAL INTERACTION SCALE SCORES, 

 YEAR 2 ....................................................................................................................... F.14 

 F.1b LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE 

 OBSERVED AND TRADITIONAL INTERACTION SCALE SCORES, 

 YEAR 2 ....................................................................................................................... F.15 

 F.2 LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE 

 OBSERVED AND READING STRATEGY GUIDANCE SCALE SCORES, 

 YEAR 2 ....................................................................................................................... F.16 

 F.3 LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE LIKERT-SCALE ITEM RATINGS AND 

 SCALE SCORES FOR CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT, YEAR 2 ........................ F.17 
xxiii 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED SUPPLEMENTAL READING COMPREHENSION 

INTERVENTIONS: FINDINGS FROM TWO STUDENT COHORTS 

Improving the ability of disadvantaged students to read and comprehend text is an important 

element in federal education policy aimed at closing the achievement gap. Title I of the No Child 

Left Behind Act (NCLB) calls on educators to close the gap between low- and high-achieving 

students using approaches that scientifically based research has shown to be effective. Such 

rigorous research is relatively scarce, however, so it is difficult for educators to determine how 

best to use Title I funds to improve student outcomes. Identifying interventions that improve 

reading comprehension is part of this challenge. 

There are increasing cognitive demands on student knowledge in middle elementary grades 

where students become primarily engaged in reading to learn, rather than learning to read (Chall 

1983). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often lack general vocabulary, as well as 

vocabulary related to academic concepts that enable them to comprehend what they are reading 

and acquire content knowledge (Hart and Risley 1995). They also often do not know how to use 

strategies to organize and acquire knowledge from informational text in content areas such as 

science and social studies (Snow and Biancarosa 2003). Instructional approaches for improving 

comprehension are not as well developed as those for decoding and fluency (Snow 2002). 

Although multiple techniques for direct instruction of comprehension in narrative text have been 

well demonstrated in small studies, there is not as much evidence on the effectiveness of 

teaching reading comprehension within content areas (National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development 2000). 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has 

undertaken a rigorous evaluation of curricula designed to improve reading comprehension as one 

step toward meeting that research gap. In 2004, ED contracted with Mathematica Policy 

Research and its subcontractors to conduct the study.1

 The study team worked with ED to refine 

the study design and select the curricula to be tested, and then recruited districts and schools, 

collected data on implementation and outcomes in two consecutive school years, and analyzed 

the data. The study was conducted based on a rigorous experimental design for assessing the 

effects of four reading comprehension curricula on reading comprehension in selected districts 

across the country, where schools were randomly assigned to use one of the four treatment 

curricula in their fifth-grade classrooms or to a control group. The four curricula included in the 

study are: (1) Project CRISS, developed by CRISS (Santa et al. 2004), (2) ReadAbout, developed 

by Scholastic (Scholastic 2005), (3) Read for Real, developed by Chapman University and 

Zaner-Bloser (Crawford et al. 2005), and (4) Reading for Knowledge, developed by the Success 

for All Foundation (Madden and Crenson 2006). 

1

These subcontractors were RMC Research Corporation, RG Research Group, the Vaughn Gross Center for 

Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Utah, and Evaluation Research 

Services. 
The experimental design ensures a valid basis for answering the study’s key research 

questions: 

1. What is the impact of the reading comprehension curricula as a whole on reading 

comprehension, and how do the impacts of the individual curricula compare to one 

another? 

2. How are student, teacher, and school characteristics related to impacts of the 

curricula? 

3. Which instructional practices are related to impacts of the curricula? 

4. What is the impact of the curricula on students one year after the end of the 

intervention implementation? 

5. Are impacts larger after schools and teachers have had one year of experience with 

the curricula? 

The study’s first report—based on the first year of data collected in 2006-2007 for the first 

cohort of fifth-grade students and released in May 2009 (James-Burdumy et al. 2009)—focused 

on the first three research questions. The findings indicated that, after one school year, there were 

no statistically significant positive impacts of the interventions, based on comparisons of fifthgrade student test scores in schools that were randomly assigned to use the interventions and 

schools that were randomly assigned to not use the interventions. Four statistically significant 

negative impacts of the curricula were observed. There was no clear pattern to the relationship 

between student, teacher, and school characteristics and the effectiveness of the interventions. 

SECOND YEAR STUDY COMPONENTS AT A GLANCE 

• Fifth-grade component – In this component, a second cohort of fifth-grade students from a subset of 

the study’s original schools was added to the study, maintaining the original treatment assignments. 

Fifth-grade teachers in treatment schools implemented their assigned interventions and fifth-grade 

teachers in control schools continued teaching reading using methods they would have used in the 

absence of the study. Pre-tests and post-tests administered to students were used to assess the impact of 

the interventions on the second cohort of students. The rationale for including this component in the 

study is that impacts may be larger after schools and teachers have had one year of experience using the 

curricula. 

• Sixth-grade component – In this component, the first cohort of students (all but 64 of whom were in 

sixth grade in the study’s second year) was tracked for one additional year and follow-up tests were 

administered at the end of the school year to assess whether the interventions had statistically significant 

impacts one year after the end of their implementation. Fourteen sixth-grade students (0.2 percent) had 

the same teacher in sixth grade as in fifth grade, but the study interventions were not implemented in the 

second year when first cohort students were in sixth grade. There are two main rationales for including 

this component in the study: (1) it is possible that impacts of the interventions could emerge in the 

second year even after the intervention implementation has ended and (2) to examine whether the 

negative effects of Reading for Knowledge observed in the first year continued into the second year. 

xxiv 
xxv 

This report focuses on the fourth and fifth research questions, based on a second year of data 

collected for the study. The second year of the study focuses on (1) the impact of the 

interventions on Cohort 2 fifth-graders after one school year of implementation and (2) the 

impact of the interventions on Cohort 1 sixth graders one year after the end of the intervention 

implementation. In particular, it presents findings related to whether the curricula had an impact 

on students one year after the end of the intervention implementation based on follow-up student 

assessment data collected in spring 2008 for the first cohort of students (enrolled in the study in 

the 2006-2007 school year). The component of the study addressing this research question is 

referred to as the sixth-grade component of the second year of the study throughout the report 

(see box). This report also presents findings related to whether impacts are larger after teachers

and schools had one year of experience using the curricula (the distinction between teachers and 

schools is due to mobility of teachers – some teachers in the second year are new to the study 

schools, but they might still benefit from the experience of their colleagues who had previously 

implemented the curricula). These findings are based on data collected for a second cohort of 

fifth-grade students (enrolled in the study in the 2007-2008 school year, after treatment schools, 

and some treatment teachers, had one year of experience using the curricula). The component 

addressing this research question is referred to as the fifth-grade component of the second year of 

the study throughout the report. 

The main findings are: 

• The curricula did not have an impact on students one year after the end of their 

implementation. In the second year, after the first cohort of students was no longer 

using the interventions, there were no statistically significant impacts of any of the 

four curricula. 

• Impacts were not statistically significantly larger after schools had one year of 

experience using the curricula. Impacts for the second cohort of students were not 

statistically significantly different from zero or from the impacts for the first cohort of 

students. (Treatment students in the second cohort attended schools that had one prior 

year of experience using the study curricula, while treatment students in the first

cohort attended schools with no prior experience using the study curricula. Reading 

for Knowledge was not implemented with the second cohort of students.) 

• The impact of one of the curricula (ReadAbout) was statistically significantly 

larger after teachers had one year of experience using the curricula. There was a 

positive, statistically significant impact of ReadAbout on the social studies reading 

comprehension assessment for second-cohort students taught by teachers who were in 

the study both years (effect size: 0.22). This impact was statistically significantly

larger than the impact for first-cohort students taught by the same teachers in the first 

year of the study. 

In summary, our findings do not support the hypothesis that these four supplemental reading 

comprehension curricula improve students’ reading comprehension, except when ReadAbout 

teachers have had one prior year of experience using the ReadAbout curriculum. 
xxvi 

 

Curricula Included in the Second Study Year 

The curricula included in the two second-year study components differed. The design of the 

study did not call for the interventions to be implemented in the sixth-grade component of the 

study, and, indeed, the interventions were not implemented in that component.2

 Rather, the 

design called for following first-cohort students for one additional year after the end of the 

implementation of the interventions in the study’s first year, to assess whether implementation in 

the study’s first year had longer-term effects on students’ outcomes (measured in the study’s 

second year when first-cohort students were in sixth grade). Therefore, the sixth-grade 

component focused on examining the impacts of the interventions implemented in the study’s 

first year, which include Project CRISS (developed by CRISS) (Santa et al. 2004), ReadAbout 

(developed by Scholastic) (Scholastic 2005), Read for Real (developed by Chapman University 

and Zaner-Bloser) (Crawford et al. 2005), and Reading for Knowledge (developed by the 

Success for All Foundation) (Madden and Crenson 2006). 

Three of the four curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) were included in 

the fifth-grade component of the second year, which involves a new cohort of fifth-grade 

students. Reading for Knowledge was not included in this component because 9 of the 18 

schools that had been assigned to implement Reading for Knowledge elected not to continue 

implementing the intervention in the second year. 

Study Design 

The study’s second year (2007-2008) design builds on the study’s first year design (2006-

2007). Before the start of the first year, schools in districts that agreed to participate were 

randomly assigned to one of the five study arms (four intervention groups and one control 

group). In both years of the study, fifth-grade teachers in schools assigned to an intervention 

group developed their own strategies for incorporating the assigned reading comprehension 

curriculum into their daily schedules and their core reading instruction. (The curricula being 

evaluated in this study were designed to supplement—not replace—the core curriculum being 

used by each teacher.) Teachers in control group schools continued to teach reading using 

whatever methods they had been using before the study began. Due to the experimental design, 

differences in outcomes of students in the treatment and control groups are attributable to the 

curricula being tested.3

2

Thirty percent of sixth-grade students attended the same school in sixth grade as they did in fifth grade 

(because their school’s grade structure included sixth grade). Very few sixth-grade students (0.2 percent) had the 

same teacher in sixth grade as in fifth grade. As noted above, none of the sixth-grade students received instruction in 

the study interventions in sixth grade. 

3

The study design just discussed is also described in James-Burdumy et al. (2006). Early study design 

proposals are laid out in Glazerman and Myers (2004). 
SUMMARY OF FIRST- AND SECOND-YEAR EVALUATION DESIGN 

Intervention: 

• First Year: Four reading comprehension curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, Read for Real, and 

Reading for Knowledge) were implemented with first-cohort students. 

• Second Year: 

o First-cohort students: Interventions were not implemented with first-cohort students. 

o Second-cohort students: Due to attrition of schools assigned to the Reading for Knowledge 

group, only three curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) were 

implemented with second-cohort students. 

Participants: 

• First Year: 10 districts, 89 schools, 268 teachers, and 6,349 fifth-grade students in the study’s first 

cohort. Districts were recruited from among those with at least 12 Title I schools, and schools were 

recruited only if they did not already use any of the four selected curricula. Students in those schools 

were eligible to participate if they were enrolled in fifth-grade classes as of January 1, 2007. Students 

in combined fourth-/fifth- or fifth-/sixth-grade classes were excluded, as were those with language 

barriers or in special education classes, although special education students mainstreamed in regular 

fifth-grade classes were eligible. 

• Second Year: 

o First-cohort students: In the second year, the 6,349 students from the first year attended 252 

schools, 176 of which agreed to permit follow-up testing of students. 

o Second-cohort students: 10 districts, 61 schools, 182 teachers, and 4,142 fifth-grade 

students in the study’s second cohort. The same eligibility and exclusion restrictions were 

used with the first and second cohorts of students. 

Research Design: 

• First Year: Within each district, schools were randomly assigned to an intervention group that would 

use one of the four curricula or to a control group that did not have access to any of the curricula being 

tested. Control group teachers could, however, use other supplemental reading programs. The study 

administered tests to Cohort 1 students near the beginning and end of the 2006-2007 school year, 

observed classrooms, and collected data from teacher questionnaires, student and school records, and 

the intervention developers. 

• Second Year: Schools and students maintained the same treatment (or control) group status in the 

second year. The study administered tests to Cohort 1 students at the end of the 2007-2008 school year 

and to Cohort 2 students near the beginning and end of the 2007-2008 school year, observed 

classrooms, and collected data from teacher questionnaires, student and school records, and the 

intervention developers. Cohort 2 impact analyses examined the effect of one year of exposure to the 

interventions after treatment schools and teachers had one year of experience using them. Cohort 1 

impact analyses examined the longer-term effects of the implementation of the interventions in the 

first study year. 

Outcomes: Impact estimates in both years focused on student reading comprehension test scores. 

Schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year were in the 

same treatment or control group in the second year as in the first year. Students in the study’s 

sixth-grade component were classified according to their treatment or control status from the 

study’s first year. See box for a summary of the evaluation design. 

There were three key distinctions between the first and second years of the study. First, 

fewer curricula were included in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year due to the 

attrition of schools assigned to implement Reading for Knowledge. Project CRISS, ReadAbout, 

and Read for Real were included in this component in the second year, while Reading for 

xxvii 
xxviii 

 

Knowledge was not.4

 Second, fewer schools participated in the fifth-grade component of the 

study’s second year (61 of the 89 schools that participated in the first year continued 

participating in Year 2).5

 Third, more schools participated in the study’s second year than in the 

first year due to the study’s sixth-grade component, in which follow-up tests were administered 

to Cohort 1 students at the end of the 2007-2008 school year in a total of 176 schools. 

This study provides educators with a sense of the effectiveness of these curricula when used 

by teachers in “real-world” conditions. Although the study team worked to facilitate study 

activities such as the collection of data in study schools, the developers provided teacher training 

and follow-up support to teachers throughout the two study years, and teachers and schools could 

discontinue use of the curricula during the study period if they believed they were ineffective or 

too challenging to use. Therefore, the study conditions may be comparable to those many 

districts might face if they implemented these curricula in their schools. 

Collecting Data 

Addressing the study questions required information about the curricula and how they were 

implemented, study participants, and students’ performance outcomes. Information about 

teaching and implementation of the curricula was collected to support an examination of the 

fidelity of implementation to each curriculum design, the ways the curricula affected more 

general (non-curriculum-specific) teaching practices related to comprehension and vocabulary 

instruction, the resources required to implement the curricula, and the way in which the curricula 

affected teachers’ allocation of time during the school day. Data on all three “levels” of study 

participants—schools, teachers, and students—were collected as a basis for describing their 

characteristics as they entered the study. Outcomes for the first cohort of students were measured 

through assessments administered towards the end of the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school 

years. Outcomes for the second cohort of students were measured through assessments 

administered towards the end of the 2007-2008 school year. More information on the study’s key 

data sources is provided below. 

Information About Teaching and Implementation of the Curricula. Five data collection 

activities focused on teachers, teaching, and implementation of the four reading comprehension 

curricula. Two of these involved classroom observations, conducted in spring 2007 and spring 

2008 for two purposes. To support interpretation of the impact estimates, intervention-specific 

“fidelity” observations of fifth-grade classes taught by treatment group teachers were conducted 

to determine the extent to which the teachers adhered to the curriculum content and procedures 

prescribed by each developer. To describe more general teacher practices related to 

comprehension and vocabulary instruction (as opposed to practices linked to a specific 

4

Reading for Knowledge was examined as part of the sixth-grade component of the study, because the sixthgrade component focused on examining the longer-term effects of the four curricula implemented in the study’s first 

year with Cohort 1 students (all four study curricula, including Reading for Knowledge, were implemented in the 

first year). 

5

Of the 28 schools that left the study, 18 were assigned to Reading for Knowledge, 2 were assigned to Project 

CRISS, 2 were assigned to ReadAbout, 5 were assigned to Read for Real, and 1 was assigned to the control group. 
xxix 

intervention) and determine whether these practices were correlated with intervention impacts, 

Expository Reading Comprehension (ERC) observations were carried out in both treatment and 

control group fifth-grade classrooms to record the frequency with which teachers engaged in 

behaviors that research suggests are effective comprehension and vocabulary teaching practices. 

The third data collection activity that addressed the implementation of the curricula was a survey 

of developers on the cost of their curriculum to school districts. The fourth data collection 

activity related to teaching was a survey of fifth-grade teachers in the study’s second year, 

administered to collect data on the amount of time students spent using informational text in a 

typical week. The last data collection activity related to teaching was a time allocation form 

administered to fifth-grade teachers in the second study year to collect data on teachers’ 

allocation of time during the school day. 

To help summarize the large amount of ERC observation data collected on general (nonintervention-specific) teaching practices related to comprehension and vocabulary instruction, 

the following three summary scales were created (for details on these scales, see Chapter II and 

Appendix F): 

• Traditional Interaction. This scale captures interactive teaching practices, primarily 

focused on vocabulary instruction and drawing inferences from text, that have been 

in use for many decades in American schools (Durkin 1978-1979; Brophy and 

Evertson 1976). 

• Reading Strategy Guidance. This scale captures teachers’ use of aspects of strategy 

instruction (such as using text structure and generating summaries to improve 

comprehension) to build students’ comprehension ability. 

• Classroom Management and Student Engagement. This scale captures teaching 

practices related to the management of student behavior and students’ engagement. 

Data on Teacher Characteristics. The fifth-grade Teacher Survey, conducted in early fall 

2006, was used to create two scales for examining the relationship between teacher 

characteristics and impacts (see Appendix F for details): 

• School Professional Culture. The School Professional Culture scale is intended to 

capture conditions in schools that affect the quality of instruction (Consortium on 

Chicago School Research 1999; Carlisle 2003). The scale’s 35 items—which were 

included in the Teacher Survey developed for this study—reflect teachers’ 

perceptions of the culture in their school, including relationships with colleagues, 

access to professional development, experiences with changes being implemented in 

their school, and leadership support in their school. 

• Teacher Efficacy. The Teacher Efficacy scale is intended to capture teachers’ ability 

to benefit from professional development (Sparks 1988; permission to use scale 

provided by Hoy and Woolfolk 1993). The scale’s 12 items, included in the Teacher 

Survey developed for this study, ask about teachers’ attitudes concerning student 

engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom management. 
Data on Students’ Baseline Achievement Levels. Two student assessments administered at 

the start of the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years allowed the study team to characterize the 

achievement level of the two cohorts of study students at baseline: 

• Passage Comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic 

Evaluation (GRADE). This assessment, published by Pearson Learning Group, 

measures a student’s ability to comprehend text passages (Williams 2001). 

• Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF). This assessment yields a 

score that reflects skills such as word identification, word meaning, and sentence 

structure, all of which are important skills for reading comprehension (Hammill et al. 

2006). 

Data on Student Outcomes. Data on students’ post-test outcomes were collected from two 

sources at the end of the fifth-grade year (spring 2007 for Cohort 1 and spring 2008 for Cohort 

2). First, students were retested using the GRADE (Williams 2001). In addition, students were 

tested for comprehension of social studies and science informational text, using assessments 

specially developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for the study (Educational Testing 

Service 2007a and 2007b). To reduce burden, half the students were randomly assigned to take 

the science test and half to take the social studies test. Data on students’ follow-up outcomes 

were collected from these same assessments at the end of the sixth-grade year (spring 2008) for 

the first cohort of students. 

Cohort 1 Students Cohort 2 Students 

Study Year 1 

(2006-2007 

school year) 

• Cohort 1 students enter study as 

fifth graders 

• Interventions implemented with 

Cohort 1 treatment students 

• Administer pre-tests and post-tests 

• Not yet included in study 

Study Year 2 

(2007-2008 

school year) 

• Cohort 1 students remain in study as 

sixth graders 

• Interventions are not implemented 

with Cohort 1 students 

• Administer follow-up tests 

• Cohort 2 students enter study as 

fifth graders 

• Interventions implemented with 

Cohort 2 treatment students 

• Administer pre-tests and post-tests 

Summary of Findings from the Study’s First Year 

The key findings from the first year of the study focus on curriculum implementation and 

impacts on student achievement. The implementation analyses document treatment teachers’ 

training and feelings of preparedness to implement the curricula, adherence to their assigned 

curriculum, and teaching practices observed among teachers in the treatment and control group 

classrooms. The impact analyses examine how student outcomes were affected by the curricula 

and how the impacts relate to conditions and practices in study schools and classrooms. The key 

findings from the first year of the study were: 

xxx 
xxxi 

• At the time of the classroom observations in spring 2007, over 80 percent (81 to 

91 percent) of treatment teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. 

Eighty-one percent of Read for Real teachers, 83 percent of Reading for Knowledge 

teachers, 87 percent of ReadAbout teachers, and 91 percent of Project CRISS teachers 

reported using their assigned curriculum. 

• Classroom observation data from the first year of intervention implementation 

showed that teachers implemented 55 to 78 percent of the behaviors deemed 

important by the developers for implementing each curriculum. ReadAbout and 

Project CRISS teachers implemented, on average, 71 and 78 percent of such 

behaviors, respectively. Reading for Knowledge teachers implemented 58 and 

65 percent of the behaviors deemed important for the two types of instructional days 

that are part of the curriculum. Finally, Read for Real teachers implemented 55 and 

71 percent of the behaviors deemed important for the two types of instructional days 

that are part of that curriculum. 

• Two of three teacher practice scales were not statistically significantly different 

between the treatment and control groups. There were no statistically significant 

differences in the Reading Strategy Guidance and Classroom Management and 

Student Engagement scales. Scores on the third scale, Traditional Interaction, were 

statistically significantly lower for the treatment group than the control group (effect 

size: -0.52). 

• No statistically significant positive impacts of the curricula on student outcomes 

were observed in the study’s first year. Reading comprehension test scores were 

not statistically significantly higher in schools using the selected reading 

comprehension curricula than in control schools. 

• There was some evidence of statistically significant negative impacts on student 

test scores in the study’s first year. The treatment group as a whole scored lower 

than the control group on the GRADE assessment (effect size: -0.08), and the 

Reading for Knowledge group scored lower than the control group on the ETS 

science comprehension assessment (effect size: -0.21). On the composite test score, 

the treatment group as a whole scored lower than the control group and the Reading 

for Knowledge group scored lower than the control group (effect sizes: -0.08 and 

-0.14, respectively). 

Summary of Implementation Findings from the Study’s Second Year 

 The second year implementation analyses focused on documenting treatment teachers’ 

training, adherence to their assigned curriculum, teaching practices observed among teachers in 

the treatment and control group classrooms, and understanding teachers’ allocation of time 

during the school day. The key implementation findings from the study’s second year are: 

• During summer and early fall 2007, 50 to 91 percent of treatment teachers were 

trained to use the curricula. Fifty percent of Read for Real teachers, 89 percent of 

Project CRISS teachers, and 91 percent of ReadAbout teachers were trained in the use 

of the curricula. 
xxxii 

• In the spring of the second year of the study, over 80 percent (83 to 96 percent) 

of treatment teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. Eighty-three 

percent of Read for Real teachers, 92 percent of Project CRISS teachers, and 

96 percent of ReadAbout teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. The 

percentage of teachers who reported using each of the three interventions did not 

differ significantly between the first and second years. 

• Classroom observation data from the second year of intervention 

implementation showed that teachers implemented 65 to 94 percent of the 

behaviors deemed important by the developers for implementing each 

curriculum. Project CRISS and ReadAbout teachers implemented, on average, 

65 and 94 percent of such behaviors, respectively, and Read for Real teachers 

implemented 75 and 76 percent of the behaviors deemed important for the two types 

of instructional days that are part of that curriculum. There were no statistically 

significant differences in average fidelity levels between the first and second study 

years. 

• Two of three teacher practice scales were not statistically significantly different 

between the treatment and control groups. There were no statistically significant 

differences in the Reading Strategy Guidance and Classroom Management and 

Student Engagement scales. Scores on the third scale, Traditional Interaction, were 

statistically significantly lower for the Project CRISS treatment group than the control 

group (effect size: -0.54). 

• Project CRISS teachers were statistically significantly less likely than control 

teachers to report engaging in enrichment activities (such as art, music, or 

physical education), non-curricular activities (such as lunch, recess, or 

arrival/dismissal activities), and other activities. Similar patterns were observed for 

ReadAbout and Read for Real, but those differences were not statistically significant. 

What Is the Impact of the Curricula on Students One Year After the End of the 

Intervention Implementation? 

No effects of the curricula on Cohort 1 students were observed in comparisons of outcomes 

measured one year after the end of the intervention implementation (in the study’s second year). 

For the three intervention groups that had no effect in the first year, effects in the second year 

remained indistinguishable from zero. For the intervention group that had evidence of a negative 

effect in Year 1 (Reading for Knowledge), the effect in the second year was indistinguishable 

from zero. Figures 1 to 4 show impacts of the curricula on Cohort 1 students’ follow-up test 

scores from spring 2008 (impacts on spring 2007 post-test scores are also shown for comparison 

purposes). Follow-up reading comprehension test scores in spring 2008 were not statistically 

significantly higher for students who attended treatment schools in the study’s first year relative 

to students who attended control schools in the study’s first year. 
‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for 

Knowledge

Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 1. Effects of Curricula on GRADE Scores, Cohort 1 Students

Spring 2007 (At End of Fifth Grade) Spring 2008 (At End of Sixth Grade)

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for 

Knowledge

Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 2. Effects of Curricula on Social Studies Reading Comprehension Scores, 

Cohort 1 Students

Spring 2007 (At End of Fifth Grade) Spring 2008 (At End of Sixth Grade)

xxxiii 
‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for 

Knowledge

Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 3. Effects of Curricula on Science Reading Comphrehension Scores,

Cohort 1 Students

Spring 2007 (At End of Fifth Grade) Spring 2008 (At End of Sixth Grade)

* Statistically different from control group at the .05 level.

*

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for 

Knowledge

Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 4. Effects of Curricula on Composite Scores, Cohort 1 Students

Spring 2007 (At End of Fifth Grade) Spring 2008 (At End of Sixth Grade)

NOTE: The composite scores are based on the GRADE scores, social studies reading comprehension scores, and science reading 

comprehension scores.

* Statistically different from control group at the .05 level.

* *

xxxiv 
xxxv 

Were Impacts Larger After Schools and Teachers Had One Year of Experience with the 

Curricula? 

The second key research question examined in the second year of the study was whether 

impacts of the curricula were larger after schools and teachers had one year of experience using 

the curricula. As mentioned above, we distinguish between schools and teachers due to the 

mobility of teachers in and out of study schools. (Focusing on schools that participated in the 

study in both years, 76 percent of control group teachers and 72 percent of treatment group 

teachers remained in the study in both years. There were no statistically significant differences in 

the percentage of teachers remaining in the study across the treatment and control groups.) 

Impacts were not significantly larger after schools had one year of experience using the 

curricula. Overall, we found no statistically significant impacts of the interventions on any of the 

three student test score outcomes for the second cohort of fifth grade students, and there were no 

statistically significant differences between the one-year impacts for the first and second cohorts 

of students (Figures 5 to 8). 

To address the research question related to teacher experience, the study team focused on 

post-test data (measured at the end of fifth grade) from first and second cohort students whose 

teachers were in the study in both the first and second years to assess whether the one-year 

impacts for the second group of students were larger than the one-year impacts for the first 

group. 

The impact of one of the curricula (ReadAbout) was statistically significantly larger after 

teachers had one year of experience using the curricula (see Figures 9 to 12). When focusing on 

students of teachers who participated in the study for two years, we found one positive, 

statistically significant impact among students in the second cohort. In particular, there was a 

positive, statistically significant impact of ReadAbout on the social studies reading 

comprehension assessment (effect size: 0.22; Figure 10). To put this in perspective, for a student 

at the 50th percentile, an effect size of 0.10 represents about 4 percentile points, an effect size of 

0.15 represents about 6 percentile points, and an effect size of 0.20 represents about 8 percentile 

points. To provide additional perspective, a meta-analysis by Rosenshine and Meister (1994) 

found an average effect size of 0.32 across nine studies examining the impact of multiple reading 

comprehension strategy instruction on standardized test scores (this meta-analysis focused on 

reciprocal teaching, which involves the use of guided practice and dialogue between students and 

teachers to teach students about four comprehension strategies including question generation, 

summarization, prediction, and clarification). Another meta-analysis by Rosenshine, Meister, and 

Chapman (1996) found an average effect size of 0.36 across 13 studies examining the impact of 

question generation on standardized test scores. 

The impact of ReadAbout on the social studies reading comprehension post-test assessment 

for the second cohort of students was statistically significantly greater than the impact of 

ReadAbout on this outcome for the first cohort of students taught by the same teachers in the 

first year of the study (effect size difference: 0.28). ReadAbout’s impacts on the other 

assessments (GRADE and science comprehension) were not statistically significant. 
‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 5. Effects of School Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test GRADE Scores of 

Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 6. Effects of School Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Social Studies Reading 

Comprehension Scores of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

xxxvi 
‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 7. Effects of School Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Science Reading 

Comprehension Scores of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 8. Effects of School Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Composite Test Scores 

of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation. The composite scores are based on the 

GRADE scores, social studies reading comprehension scores, and science reading comprehension scores.

xxxvii 
‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 9. Effects of Teacher Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test GRADE Scores of 

Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 10. Effects of Teacher Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Social Studies 

Reading Comprehension Scores of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

*

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

* Statistically different from control group at the .05 level.

xxxviii 
xxxix 

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 11. Effects of Teacher Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Science Reading 

Comprehension Scores of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation.

‐0.2

‐0.15

‐0.1

‐0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Combined Treatment 

Group

Effect Size

Figure 12. Effect of Teacher Experience with the Curricula on Post-Test Composite

Test Scores of Fifth-Grade Students

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: These effects represent impacts of the interventions after one year of implementation. The composite scores are based on the 

GRADE scores, social studies reading comprehension scores, and science reading comprehension scores.
xl 

Findings from Nonexperimental Analyses 

 For this report, the study team conducted a set of nonexperimental analyses to examine the 

relationship between students’ test scores and classroom practices, teacher efficacy in the 

classroom, teacher professional development, and time students spent using informational text. 

The study team also examined the correlation of impacts and school characteristics. These 

findings must be interpreted with caution, as they are correlational in nature and, therefore, do 

not provide causal evidence of the relationship between the variables examined. 

 The key findings from these analyses are: 

• Two of the three teacher practice scales were correlated with test scores. There is 

evidence of a positive and statistically significant relationship between post-test 

scores and Classroom Management (14 of 16 correlations were statistically 

significant) and Reading Strategy Guidance (10 of 16 correlations were statistically 

significant) scales. The Traditional Interaction scale was not statistically significantly 

related to post-test scores. 

• Three sets of individual items from the ERC were found to have the largest 

number of statistically significant positive correlations with test scores (48 of 64).

These items included teaching practices related to (1) explicit comprehension strategy 

instruction (16 of 24 correlations were positive and statistically significant), (2) 

teachers’ management and responsiveness (18 of 24 correlations were positive and 

statistically significant), and (3) student engagement (14 of 16 correlations were 

positive and statistically significant). Among the other individual ERC items, just 15 

of 344 correlations were positive and statistically significant. 

• No statistically significant relationships were found between test scores and 

teacher efficacy, hours of professional development reported by teachers, or time 

teachers spent with students in reading activities or using informational text.
1 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Improving the ability of disadvantaged children to read and comprehend text is an important 

element in federal education policy aimed at closing the achievement gap. Title I of the No Child 

Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 calls on educators to close the gap between low- and highachieving students, using approaches found effective in scientifically based research. Such 

research is limited, however, so it is difficult for educators to decide how best to use Title I funds 

to improve student outcomes. Finding effective interventions to improve reading comprehension 

is part of this challenge. 

There are increasing cognitive demands on student knowledge in middle elementary grades 

where students become primarily engaged in reading to learn, rather than learning to read (Chall 

1983). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often lack general vocabulary, as well as 

vocabulary related to academic concepts that enable them to comprehend what they are reading 

and acquire content knowledge (Hart and Risley 1995). They also often do not know how to use 

strategies to organize and acquire knowledge from informational text in content areas such as 

science and social studies (Snow and Biancarosa 2003). Instructional approaches for improving 

comprehension are not as well developed as those for decoding and fluency (Snow 2002). 

Although multiple techniques for direct instruction of comprehension in narrative text have been 

well demonstrated in small studies, there is not as much evidence on the effectiveness of 

teaching reading comprehension within content areas (National Institute of Child Health and 

Human Development 2000). 

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has 

undertaken a rigorous evaluation of interventions designed to improve reading comprehension as 

one step toward meeting that research gap. The Impact Evaluation of Reading Comprehension 

Interventions, begun in 2004, will contribute to the scientific research base available to 

practitioners. Carefully selected reading comprehension interventions were tested using a 

rigorous experimental design to determine their effects on reading comprehension among fifthgrade students in selected districts across the country. 

Concerns over students’ reading achievement6

 helped shape IES’s process for defining 

research on issues related to Title I and the ultimate decision to focus this evaluation on reading 

comprehension of informational text. IES contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and its 

subcontractors in October 2002 to help identify issues relevant to Title I evaluation and to 

propose evaluation design options, and later, in October 2004, to conduct an evaluation.7 IES 

6

Findings from the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that one-third of the 

nation’s fourth graders have difficulty reading (U.S. Department of Education 2007). Other estimates suggest as 

many as 30 percent of elementary, middle, and high school students have reading problems that curtail educational 

progress and attainment (Moats 1999). 

7

These subcontractors were RMC Research Corporation, RG Research Group, the Vaughn Gross Center for 

Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Utah, and Evaluation Research 

Services. 
2 

 

and Mathematica® drew on input from two expert panels in the design of the study: the Title I 

Independent Review Panel (IRP) set up by Congress to advise ED on Title I evaluation, and a 

special Technical Work Group (TWG) of experts on reading comprehension and evaluation 

design. 

With input from these sources, IES decided on an evaluation plan focused on fifth graders, 

so that the study complemented other IES initiatives to investigate the effectiveness of Reading 

First for younger students. This focus also reflected the concern that disadvantaged students may 

continue to struggle with reading as they reach upper elementary grades. The focus was on 

testing interventions designed to improve comprehension of expository text. Outcomes were 

defined as the ability to comprehend such text generally and in two specific content areas, 

science and social studies. 

The resulting evaluation addresses a need for reliable information on the effectiveness of 

commercially available curricula designed to improve students’ reading comprehension skills.8

There is a massive body of research on children’s reading and the individual comprehension 

strategies (or combinations of strategies) that may improve students’ reading comprehension, but 

it offers little guidance on whether (and the extent to which) commercially available curricula 

improve students’ reading comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development 2000). Moreover, the studies reviewed in the National Reading Panel (NRP) report 

suffered from a mix of limitations including small sample sizes, a focus on outcome assessments 

designed by the developers of the interventions being studied, the use of analytic methods that 

were not aligned with the unit of assignment, and the use of nonexperimental methods. 

This study is designed to overcome those limitations. It focuses on curricula designed for 

commercial distribution. It is based on a rigorous experimental design and a large sample that 

included 10 districts, 89 schools, 268 teachers, and 6,349 students in the study’s first cohort 

(enrolled in the study in the 2006-2007 school year) and 10 districts, 61 schools, 182 teachers, 

and 4,142 students in the study’s second cohort (enrolled in the study in the 2007-2008 school 

year). The student assessments used to examine the interventions’ impacts on reading 

comprehension were selected by the study team rather than developers.

The study’s first report—based on the first year of data collected in 2006-2007—was 

released in May 2009 (James-Burdumy et al. 2009) and indicated that, after one school year, 

there were no statistically significant positive impacts of the interventions, based on comparisons 

of fifth-grade student test scores in schools that were randomly assigned to use the interventions 

and schools that were randomly assigned to not use the interventions. There was no clear pattern 

to the relationship between student, teacher, and school characteristics and the effectiveness of 

the interventions. 

The second year of the study (conducted in the 2007-2008 school year) is the focus of this 

report, and has two main components. The first component follows students from the study’s 

first year for one more year, using the same outcome measures, to examine whether there is an 

8

Three of the four curricula are currently available commercially. One curriculum—Reading for Knowledge—

was designed for commercial use, but is not yet available to the public. 
3 

 

impact of the interventions one year after the interventions were implemented. The second 

component essentially repeats the first year of the study for three of the four interventions with a 

new cohort of fifth-grade students to assess whether the interventions are more effective after 

schools and teachers have had one year of experience using them. In sum, the second year of the 

study focuses on (1) the impact of the interventions on Cohort 2 fifth graders after one school 

year of implementation and (2) the impact of the interventions on Cohort 1 sixth graders one year 

after the end of the intervention implementation. 

This second report presents the background and design of the evaluation, impact results 

from the 2007-2008 school year (the second year of intervention implementation and data 

collection), and differences in impacts between the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years. As 

background for those results, this chapter reviews the existing research on reading 

comprehension strategies, the study design, identification of study interventions, selection and 

recruitment of study sites, and the data collected. 

 The remainder of the report presents findings on the implementation of the reading 

comprehension interventions and the impacts of those interventions on (1) longer-term, spring 

2008 follow-up outcomes9

 for the first cohort of fifth-grade students (enrolled in the study in the 

2006-2007 school year) and (2) short-term, spring 2008 post-test outcomes for the second cohort 

of fifth-grade students (enrolled in the study in the 2007-2008 school year). 

 

 Two types of differences in impacts are also presented. First, differences in post-test impacts 

between the first and second cohorts of students are presented to assess whether the interventions 

are more effective after teachers and schools have had one year of experience using them (recall 

that post-test outcomes are measured at the end of fifth grade for both cohorts, after one year of 

intervention implementation for treatment students). Second, differences in post-test (end of fifth 

grade) and follow-up (end of sixth grade) impacts for the first cohort of students are presented to 

assess whether the impacts of the interventions in the second year (when the first cohort of 

students were in sixth grade and no longer using the interventions) differ from impacts in the first 

year (when the first cohort of students were in fifth grade and treatment students had just finished 

one year of intervention implementation). 

 

Finally, the report presents findings from exploratory, nonexperimental analyses that may be 

of interest to readers, including additional descriptive information on classroom practices and an 

examination of the relationship between student test scores and classroom practices, teacher 

efficacy, teachers’ professional development, and students’ time spent reading; and the 

relationship between impacts and school characteristics. 

9

Short-term, post-test outcomes for the first cohort of students were measured at the end of the year in which 

the interventions were implemented (the 2006-2007 school year). Longer-term, follow-up outcomes for the first 

cohort of students were measured at the end of the following school year (the 2007-2008 school year). The 

interventions were not implemented in the 2007-2008 school year with the first cohort of students. Short-term, posttest outcomes for the second cohort of students were measured at the end of the year in which the interventions were 

implemented (the 2007-2008 school year). 
4 

A. PAST READING RESEARCH HAS FUELED USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS, 

BUT LEFT QUESTIONS UNANSWERED 

A significant amount of research on specific instructional strategies to enhance reading 

comprehension is available. Although that research has been used to guide the development of 

many reading comprehension instructional programs, the effectiveness of those programs has 

generally not been studied (Liang and Dole 2006). In addition, the research base consists 

primarily of small-scale studies, many of which suffer from limitations in the rigor of their 

research design. 

The NRP recommendations (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

2000) and other research syntheses support a variety of techniques and approaches that can be 

classified into four groups: (1) student comprehension strategies, (2) teaching strategies, 

(3) instructional delivery, and (4) professional development. These recommendations are 

summarized below.

Student Comprehension Strategies. The NRP recommendations focus predominantly on 

teaching students strategies for making meaning out of text. Two recent reviews (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000; Gersten et al. 2001) concluded that 

research shows the most benefit comes from approaches in which students use multiple strategies 

flexibly as they read. The NRP (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

2000) and others (Pearson et al. 1992; Pressley 2002; RAND Reading Study Group 2000) have 

highlighted two types of strategies as particularly important: 

• Summarizing. Summarizing consists of condensing textual information into essential 

or main points; it employs multiple strategies, such as determining what is important, 

categorizing, and organizing information (Brown and Day 1983). 

• Question generation. Question generation involves students, not teachers, asking 

questions as they read (Martin and Pressley 1991; Wood et al. 1990; Rosenshine et al. 

1996). The point of this strategy is for students to actively engage in the text by 

thinking about questions they want to answer as they read. 

Teaching Strategies. A second group of recommendations from the NRP for effective 

comprehension instruction rests on teaching strategies that appear to influence students’ 

comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000), including: 

• Use of engaging text. Research has shown that when students read texts that are 

interesting or that relate to topics of interest to them, they demonstrate improved 

comprehension compared to when they read other types of text (Renninger et al. 

1992). Similarly, other research (Guthrie et al. 1998; Guthrie et al. 2000a; Guthrie et 

al. 2000b) supports the benefits of using texts containing vivid details that are 

relevant to the task and easily accessible, with colorful photographs and illustrations 

(Schraw et al. 1995). 

• Embedding strategy instruction in texts students use in learning academic 

disciplines. Research suggests that, when strategy instruction (for example, teaching 
5 

students about summarizing or question generation) is embedded into the reading of 

text in academic content areas, students will be more likely to transfer their use of the 

strategies to texts they read in other content areas and on their own (Pressley 1998; 

Pressley 2002). Conversely, when strategies are taught in isolation (for example, on 

reading instruction workbook pages), students do not transfer skills from workbook 

pages to reading of expository texts (Pearson and Fielding 1991; Pressley 2000). 

• Cooperative learning. Research suggests that cooperative learning—having students 

work together in groups, interacting with their peers while discussing text—can 

encourage students to think about and internalize comprehension strategies (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000). Practicing a strategy in a 

small group has been found to contribute to the success of at least some researcherdeveloped instructional activities (National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development 2000; Gersten et al. 2001). 

Instructional Delivery. A third set of NRP recommendations focuses on instructional 

delivery—how best to implement instruction on student comprehension strategies (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2000). These recommendations encourage 

using direct, or explicit, instruction and explanation, two methods supported by research: 

• Direct, or explicit, instruction. Teachers model how the comprehension strategy or 

skill is used (often called a “think aloud”), give feedback to students as they begin to 

use the strategy, and provide opportunities for students to practice using the strategy 

or skill independently (Rosenshine and Stevens 1986; Adams et al. 1982; Darch and 

Gersten 1986; Darch and Kame’enui 1987; Lloyd et al. 1980; Patching et al. 1983). 

• Direct explanation of strategies. Teachers first name and explain a strategy, describe 

when and how it might best be used, and tell why it is important for improving 

reading. They next engage in a significant amount of explanation and cognitive 

modeling to show how to use the strategy. Students practice the strategy in teachermediated activities until they are able to use the strategy independently (Duffy et al. 

1987; Duke and Pearson 2002; National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development 2000; RAND Reading Study Group 2000). 

Professional Development. A fourth focus of NRP recommendations—professional 

development in the teaching of reading comprehension strategies—has been found to be 

important in promoting effective teaching of reading comprehension (National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development 2000). With sufficient professional development, teaching of 

comprehension strategies improves (Brown et al. 1996). Ongoing professional development 

consisting of one-on-one coaching, collaborative sharing, and lesson observation and feedback 

has been shown to help teachers learn to teach comprehension strategies (Duffy et al. 1987). This 

body of research suggests that building skills in teaching reading comprehension requires a good 

deal of professional development and that thorough use of comprehension strategy instruction is 

difficult for many teachers. 

 
6 

The NRP’s research review and other research summaries referenced above suggest that 

interventions to improve reading comprehension can have positive effects on student outcomes, 

but many of the individual studies on comprehension instruction have limitations that highlight 

the importance of this study. First, many studies have been based on instruction delivered to 

students by well-trained graduate students or teachers personally trained by the researchers, 

which leaves open the question of how useful the interventions would be in “real-world” 

classrooms with teachers not exposed to such training (Klingner et al. 1998; Shany and Biemiller 

1995). Another limitation is that reading materials that researchers used were sometimes 

different from those students typically encountered in classrooms (Anderson and Roit 1993; 

Baumann and Bergeron 1993). Although individual and even multiple strategies have been 

researched, no large-scale, rigorous studies of supplemental comprehension curricula designed 

for commercial distribution have been conducted. Developers of most current commercial 

programs indicate that their programs are “research-based,” but they generally mean that 

instructional activities in the programs have been the focus of research studies. However, the 

complete program usually has not been rigorously researched (Liang and Dole 2006). Finally, 

many studies used outcome measures that were closely aligned to the specific goal of the 

intervention (see, for example, Baumann 1984; Hare and Borchardt 1984; Raphael and Pearson 

1985; Taylor and Beach 1984). Positive effects are more likely with closely aligned outcome 

measures, but policy interest generally focuses on broader measures of reading comprehension. 

B. STUDY DESIGN: FOCUS ON RIGOR AND UNDERSTANDING INTERVENTIONS 

To address the limitations of earlier research noted in the prior section, the plan for this 

evaluation is based on a rigorous experimental design coupled with an emphasis on 

understanding the thoroughness of teachers’ implementation of interventions under regular 

school conditions. The experimental design ensures a strong basis for answering the study’s key 

research questions: 

1. What is the impact of the reading comprehension curricula as a whole on reading 

comprehension, and how do the impacts of the individual curricula compare to one 

another? 

2. How are student, teacher, and school characteristics related to impacts of the 

curricula? 

3. Which instructional practices are related to impacts of the curricula? 

4. What is the impact of the curricula on students one year after the end of the 

intervention implementation? 

5. Are impacts larger after schools and teachers have had one year of experience with 

the curricula? 

The first research question provides primary answers about intervention effectiveness. It 

addresses the question faced by school districts interested in investing in a curriculum to improve 

students’ reading comprehension. The second and third questions help to understand what lies 

behind the results and might suggest directions for future research. In addition, answers to those 
7 

 

questions provide school districts with more detailed information on the conditions in which the 

interventions might be effective. 

The second year of data collection permits the study team to address the fourth and fifth 

questions about the longer-term effects of the curricula. In particular, the fourth question 

addresses whether the interventions have an impact on students one year after the intervention 

implementation ended. The fifth question addresses whether intervention impacts are larger after 

schools and teachers have had one year of experience using the curricula. 

1. First-Year Study Design 

The study’s second year (2007-2008) design builds on the study’s first year design (2006-

2007), the main features of which are summarized here. The study was based on a rigorous 

random assignment design; a competitive process for identifying interventions for the study; 

voluntary participation of districts, schools, and teachers; and a comprehensive data collection to 

facilitate answering the study’s key research questions. The study design laid out below is also 

described in James-Burdumy et al. (2006).10 

a. Random Assignment 

 Prior to the 2006-2007 school year, schools in districts that agreed to participate were 

randomly assigned to one of the five study arms (four intervention groups and one control 

group). For example, in a district with 10 schools, 2 schools were assigned to each treatment 

group and 2 schools were assigned to the control group. Curriculum developers provided training 

for teachers in schools assigned to their intervention. Teachers and schools assigned to a 

treatment or intervention group developed their own strategies for incorporating the assigned 

reading comprehension curriculum into their daily schedules and their core reading instruction. 

(As described in more detail in the next section, the curricula being evaluated in this study were 

designed to supplement—not replace—the core reading curriculum being used by each teacher.) 

Teachers in control group schools continued to teach reading using the methods they had been 

using before the study. Due to the experimental design, differences in outcomes of students in 

the treatment and control groups are attributable to the interventions being tested. 

This study tests whether interventions are effective when districts and schools volunteer to 

participate. Eligible districts that were invited to participate in the study were under no obligation 

to participate, and only some of them (10 of 71) agreed to do so. When districts agreed to 

participate, they did so after holding discussions with leaders of schools that they felt best met 

the selection priorities for the study. 

10Early study design proposals are laid out in Glazerman and Myers (2004). 
SUMMARY OF FIRST- AND SECOND-YEAR EVALUATION DESIGN 

Intervention: 

• First Year: Four reading comprehension curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, Read for Real, and 

Reading for Knowledge) were implemented with first-cohort students. 

• Second Year: 

o First-cohort students: Interventions were not implemented with first-cohort students. 

o Second-cohort students: Due to attrition of schools assigned to the Reading for Knowledge 

group, only three curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) were 

implemented with second-cohort students. 

Participants: 

• First Year: 10 districts, 89 schools, 268 teachers, and 6,349 fifth-grade students in the study’s first 

cohort. Districts were recruited from among those with at least 12 Title I schools, and schools were 

recruited only if they did not already use any of the four selected curricula. Students in those schools 

were eligible to participate if they were enrolled in fifth-grade classes as of January 1, 2007. Students 

in combined fourth-/fifth- or fifth-/sixth-grade classes were excluded, as were those with language 

barriers or in special education classes, although special education students mainstreamed in regular 

fifth-grade classes were eligible. 

• Second Year: 

o First-cohort students: In the second year, the 6,349 students from the first year attended 252 

schools, 176 of which agreed to permit follow-up testing of students. 

o Second-cohort students: 10 districts, 61 schools, 182 teachers, and 4,142 fifth-grade 

students in the study’s second cohort. The same eligibility and exclusion restrictions were 

used with the first and second cohorts of students. 

Research Design: 

• First Year: Within each district, schools were randomly assigned to an intervention group that would 

use one of the four curricula or to a control group that did not have access to any of the curricula being 

tested. Control group teachers could, however, use other supplemental reading programs. The study 

administered tests to Cohort 1 students near the beginning and end of the 2006-2007 school year, 

observed classrooms, and collected data from teacher questionnaires, student and school records, and 

the intervention developers. 

• Second Year: Schools and students maintained the same treatment (or control) group status in the 

second year. The study administered tests to Cohort 1 students at the end of the 2007-2008 school year 

and to Cohort 2 students near the beginning and end of the 2007-2008 school year, observed 

classrooms, and collected data from teacher questionnaires, student and school records, and the 

intervention developers. Cohort 2 impact analyses examined the effect of one year of exposure to the 

interventions after treatment schools and teachers had one year of experience using them. Cohort 1 

impact analyses examined the longer-term effects of the implementation of the interventions in the 

first study year. 

Outcomes: Impact estimates in both years focused on student reading comprehension test scores. 

The integrity of the study design was maintained throughout the study’s first year. Two 

treatment schools did not end up using their assigned intervention in the first year of the study, 

but student testing (at both baseline and post-test) was conducted in both of these schools to 

ensure that the integrity of the study’s treatment and control groups was maintained.11 See 

Appendix B for diagrams showing the flow of schools and students through the study. 

8 

 

11One school stopped implementing the intervention early in the school year when the only teacher who 

attended training discontinued using the program. The other school (in another district) never implemented the 
9 

rventions): 

 

b. Selection of Interventions 

 

An open, competitive process was used to solicit proposals from curriculum developers. The 

invitation to submit proposals described the type of interventions to be included in the study. The 

reading comprehension interventions needed to supplement—not displace—the core reading, 

science, and/or social studies instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. They needed to take an 

average of 30 to 45 minutes per day to implement and they needed to encompass an entire school 

year. 

A total of 13 proposals were submitted. Complete proposals were reviewed by an expert 

panel to assess the extent to which the proposals met substantive criteria for inclusion in a pilot 

implementation year. These criteria related to the intervention’s theoretical and empirical 

underpinnings, evidence of the intervention’s efficacy or effectiveness (based on previous 

research conducted by the developer or other researchers), the intervention’s design and support 

proposed for teachers, institutional capability, and the appropriateness of the intervention for the 

study’s target population. 

Five programs were selected to participate in the 2005-2006 pilot year.12 After the pilot 

year, four of the five interventions were selected for the full implementation of the study. To 

make this decision, the expert panel reviewed curriculum materials, initial proposals, and data 

collected during the pilot year. After discussing the interventions with IES and the study team, 

the panel recommended the four curricula they concluded best met the study’s selection criteria, 

which included ease of use, intensity of the professional development provided, the extent to 

which curriculum activities were clearly specified, theoretical and empirical support for the 

program’s content, and the developer’s capacity to support a large-scale implementation. Based 

on these recommendations, IES then selected the following interventions (see Table II.1 for a 

summary of these inte

 

• Project CRISS (developed by CRISS) (Santa et al. 2004): Project CRISS focuses on 

five keys to learning—background knowledge, purpose setting, author’s craft (which 

involves identifying and using the structure of text to help improve comprehension), 

active learning, and metacognition. The program is designed to be used during 

language arts, science, or social studies periods. 

• ReadAbout (developed by Scholastic) (Scholastic 2005): Students are taught reading 

comprehension skills such as author’s purpose, main idea, cause and effect, compare 

and contrast, summarizing, and inferences, primarily through a computer program. 

(continued)

program after teachers were trained; the school indicated that its schedule could not accommodate the required 45 

minutes of instructional time. 

12During the pilot year, each developer recruited three Title I schools, trained an average of three teachers per 

school, and provided support to teachers during the year. The study team observed training and instruction, reviewed 

training and instructional materials, and provided formative feedback to the developers so they could refine their 

interventions. To eliminate any potential conflict of interest, the subcontractor who interacted with developers 

during the pilot year to refine the interventions was not involved in the impact study. 
10 

 

Students apply what they have learned during this time to a selection of science and 

social studies trade books. 

• Read for Real (developed by Chapman University and Zaner-Bloser) (Crawford et 

al. 2005): In Read for Real, teachers work with a six-volume set of books to teach 

reading strategies appropriate for use before, during, and after reading (such as 

previewing, activating prior knowledge, setting a purpose, main idea, graphic 

organizers, and text structures). Each of these units includes vocabulary, fluency, and 

writing activities. 

• Reading for Knowledge (developed by the Success for All Foundation) (Madden 

and Crenson 2006): Reading for Knowledge makes extensive use of cooperative 

learning strategies and a process called SQRRRL (Survey, Question, Read, Restate, 

Review, Learn). 

c. District and School Recruiting 

The study team began recruiting school districts for the study in January 2006. The team 

focused on districts that served low-income students and had enough schools to support the 

random assignment of schools in each participating district to the five arms of the study. 

Interested districts worked with the study team to identify schools that served low-income 

students and did not already use any of the four curricula identified for the study (or other similar 

comprehension curricula). 

d. Study Participants 

By August 2006, participating districts and schools had been identified and participation 

agreements with districts obtained. A total of 10 districts and 89 schools agreed to participate in 

the study’s first year. Table I.1 shows the Year 1 sample sizes by intervention/control group. 

As expected—given the types of districts and schools being recruited—the participating 

districts and schools were statistically significantly different from schools and districts 

nationwide in several respects. The districts included in the study were statistically significantly 

more disadvantaged, larger, and more urban than the average U.S. district (Table I.2). In 

particular, study districts had a higher percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch than the average district in the United States (57 percent vs. 39 percent). Study districts 

included more schools (65 vs. 6) and students (38,490 vs. 3,069) than the average U.S. district, 

and were more likely to be in urban areas (70 percent vs. 13 percent) than the average district. 

Similar statistically significant patterns were found for the schools participating in the study 

(Table I.3). For example, study schools were more likely to be eligible for Title I funds 

(96 percent vs. 74 percent) and more likely to be operating schoolwide Title I programs, as 

compared to the average U.S. school (93 percent vs. 50 percent).13 Study schools also included a 

13Schools in which poor children make up at least 40 percent of enrollment are eligible to use Title I funds for 

schoolwide programs that serve all children in the school. 
11 

TABLE I.1 

NUMBER OF STUDY DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN YEAR 1 

Intervention 

Number of 

Districts Number of Schools 

Number of 

Teachers

Number of 

Studentsa

Cohort 1 Post-Test 

Project CRISS 10 17 52 1,319 

ReadAbout 10 17 50 1,245 

Read for Real 9b 16 54 1,228 

Reading for Knowledge 10 18 53 1,195 

Control Group 10 21 59 1,362 

Total 10 89 268 6,349 

a

This number includes all consenting students in the analysis sample. In Year 1, across all treatment groups, 87-88 percent of 

cohort 1 students in the analysis sample were tested at post-test (spring 2007). 

b

One district did not have enough participating schools to include all four intervention groups. The interventions that were 

assigned in that district were selected randomly. 

TABLE I.2 

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISTRICTS IN THE STUDY 

Characteristics U.S. Districtsa

Districts in 

Study Difference p-value 

Number of Schools per District 5.8 65.1 -59.3* 0.00 

Percentage of Schools in Each District That Are:

Title I Eligible 3.6 48.9 -45.3* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title I 2.3 45.7 -43.4* 0.00 

District Location (Percentage) 

Urban 12.8 70.0 -57.2* 0.00 

Urban fringe —b —b —b —b

Town 16.8 0.0 16.8 0.16 

Rural area —b —b —b —b

Number of Full-Time Teachers per District 120 573 -453* 0.00 

Number of Students per District 3,069 38,490 -35,421* 0.00 

Percentage of Students Eligible for Free or 

Reduced-Price Lunchc 38.6 57.3 -18.7* 0.02 

Number of Districts 16,019 10 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). 

a

Data include districts with one or more regular schools. Regular schools are defined as public schools that do not focus primarily 

on vocational, special, or alternative education. 

b

Value suppressed to protect district confidentiality. 

c

Data are missing for 3 percent of districts with at least one regular school nationwide. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
 12 

TABLE I.3 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STUDY 

Characteristics U.S. Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage) 

Title I Eligible Schoolb 74.3 95.5 -21.2* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title Ib 49.5 93.3 -43.8* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage) 

Urbanc 28.8 68.5 -39.7* 0.00 

Urban fringe 30.0 16.9 13.2* 0.01 

Town and rural aread 41.1 14.6 26.5* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 14.9 16.3 -1.4 0.33 

Number of Students per School (Average) 449.8 560.3 -110.5* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)e 49.3 72.3 -23.0* 0.00 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage)f

White 56.2 26.7 29.6* 0.00 

Black 16.3 36.9 -20.6* 0.00 

Hispanic 20.0 31.5 -11.4* 0.00 

Asian 4.1 1.9 2.1* 0.03 

Native American 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.32 

GRADE Score (Average) 100.0 100.0 0.0 1.00 

Number of Schools 50,905 89 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). Data from the last row of the table are from two sources: 

(1) the study team’s baseline GRADE test administration, and (2) national GRADE norm information 

provided by the GRADE test’s developer. 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. Regular primary and 

middle schools are defined as public elementary/secondary schools that do not focus primarily on vocational, 

special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 2 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

c

Data are missing for 0.7 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

d

The town and rural area categories have been combined to protect school confidentiality. 

e

Data are missing for 4 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

f

Data are missing for 0.8 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
13 

higher percentage of black (37 percent vs. 16 percent) and Hispanic (32 percent vs. 20 percent) 

students than the average school, reflecting the more urban nature of the study districts and 

schools. 

Because over 90 percent of the schools participating in the study were schoolwide Title I 

schools, we also compared study schools to schoolwide Title I schools in the U.S. to assess how 

similar our study schools were to other Title I schools in the U.S. (Table I.4). Those comparisons 

showed that study schools were more likely than U.S. schoolwide Title I schools to be urban 

(69 percent vs. 39 percent) and less likely to be in a town or rural area (15 percent vs. 39 

percent), and included a smaller percentage of white students (27 percent vs. 38 percent) and a 

higher percentage of black students (37 percent vs. 24 percent). Study schools also included 

more students than the average schoolwide Title I school (560 vs. 457). 

e. The Sample Design Ensured an 80 Percent Probability of Detecting Impacts of at Least 

0.17 Standard Deviations in the Study’s First Year 

The study design called for a sample that enabled us to detect impacts of individual 

interventions whose effect size was 0.25 standard deviations, with 80 percent probability. This 

calculation was based on assumptions regarding the intraclass correlation, school- and studentlevel R2

 (described below), and an adjustment for multiple comparisons. To attain this target 

effect size with 80 percent probability, the design called for recruiting 100 schools in 10 districts 

with 7,800 participating students. After recruitment was completed and 89 schools agreed to 

participate in the study, we were able, with 80 percent probability, to detect impacts of individual 

interventions on post-test student test scores in the study’s first year of at least 0.17 standard 

deviations. The increase in statistical power was due to a greater benefit from covariate 

adjustment than anticipated. We originally assumed that there would be an intraclass correlation 

of 0.10, and school- and student-level R2 of 0.50. The major factor contributing to the increased 

power was that the school-level R2 turned out to be 0.89. 

To put this in perspective, the average gain in GRADE scores among students in the control 

group between baseline and follow up was 0.44 standard deviations over a period of 

245 calendar days. The full school year is about 270 calendar days. Assuming a constant rate of 

achievement gain over time, a 0.17 standard deviation gain would take about one-third of a 

school year (0.17/(0.44*270/245) = 0.35). The study’s ability to detect impacts as low as 

0.17 standard deviations can also be compared with the findings of a meta-analysis by 

Rosenshine and Meister (1994), which found an average effect size of 0.32 across nine studies of 

the impact of multiple reading comprehension strategy instruction on standardized test scores. 

(This meta-analysis focused on reciprocal teaching, which involves the use of guided practice 

and dialogue between students and teachers to teach students about four comprehension 

strategies including question generation, summarization, prediction, and clarification.) Another 

meta-analysis by Rosenshine, Meister, and Chapman (1996) found an average effect size of 0.36 

across 13 studies examining the impact of question generation on standardized test scores. 

With respect to teacher practices, which are of interest for the descriptive, implementation 

analysis, the study had less power due to smaller sample sizes of teachers and larger intraclass 

correlations (in the range of 0.20 to 0.30). For example, the smallest difference on the Traditional 
14 

TABLE I.4 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE STUDY, COMPARED TO 

SCHOOLWIDE TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Characteristics

U.S. 

Schoolwide 

Title I 

Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage) 

Title I Eligible School 100.0 95.5 4.5* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title I 100.0 93.3 6.7* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage)b

Urban 39.2 68.5 -29.4* 0.00 

Urban fringe 22.0 16.9 5.2 0.24 

Town and rural areac 38.8 14.6 24.2* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 14.9 16.3 -1.4 0.33 

Number of Students per School (Average) 456.7 560.3 -103.5* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)d 69.3 72.3 -3.0 0.17 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage) 

White 38.2 26.6 11.6* 0.00 

Black 24.1 36.9 -12.8* 0.00 

Hispanic 30.7 31.5 -0.8 0.82 

Asian 3.3 1.9 1.3 0.17 

Native American 2.5 1.0 1.5 0.20 

Number of Schools 24,754 89 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms and that are 

schoolwide Title I schools. Regular primary and middle schools are defined as public elementary/secondary schools 

that do not focus primarily on vocational, special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 0.6 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

c

The town and rural area categories have been combined to protect school confidentiality. 

d

Data are missing for 1.5 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
15 

 

Interaction scale of a single intervention that the study could detect with 80 percent probability 

was 0.7514 in the study’s first year. 

f. Data Collection 

Addressing the reading comprehension evaluation questions required collecting information 

about the interventions and how they were implemented, the study participants, and students’ 

performance outcomes. We used information about implementation of the interventions to 

examine the fidelity of implementation to curriculum designs, to describe teaching practices 

related to comprehension and vocabulary instruction, and to examine the resources required to 

implement the interventions. Data were collected on all three “levels” of participants—schools, 

teachers, and students—as a basis for describing their characteristics as they entered the study 

and the preparation teachers had for using the new interventions (Table I.5). We measured 

subsequent student outcomes through reading comprehension test scores. The text in this section 

describes the data collection conducted by the study team during the first year of the 

implementation of the interventions—the 2006-2007 school year. The data collection conducted 

during the second study year (the 2007-2008 school year) is described in Section 2 of this 

chapter below. 

(i) Information on Teaching and Intervention Implementation 

In the study’s first year, three data collection activities focused on teachers, teaching, and 

implementation of the four reading comprehension interventions. Two of these activities 

involved classroom observation. The first of these activities, “fidelity observations” of classes 

taught by treatment group teachers, were conducted to determine the extent to which teachers 

adhered to the curriculum content and procedures prescribed by each developer. The second data 

collection activity, “Expository Reading Comprehension” (ERC) observations, were carried out 

in both treatment and control group teachers’ classrooms to record the frequency with which 

teachers engaged in behaviors that experts consider to be best practices for vocabulary and 

comprehension instruction. The third data collection activity pertaining to implementation of the 

interventions was a survey of developers on the cost of their curricula. 

Fidelity Observations Were Used to Assess Adherence to Each Intervention. To support 

interpretation of the impact estimates, fidelity observations were conducted to provide a picture 

of how thoroughly the reading comprehension interventions were delivered. A separate fidelity 

observation form was developed for each intervention to capture whether treatment group 

teachers demonstrated behaviors or performed specific instructional activities inherent to the 

intervention. To create the forms, the evaluation team drew from each intervention’s curriculum 

content and materials and then had the developer review the form to confirm that it accurately 

reflected the teaching practices and behaviors the developer expected as part of the curriculum’s 

14The minimum detectable effects reported in this paragraph are the effects that the study could detect with 

80 percent probability (the standard level of power for reporting minimum detectable effects). The study could 

detect smaller effects with lower probability, which is why some of the reported statistically significant impacts are 

smaller than the effect sizes stated here. 
16 

TABLE I.5 

SCHEDULE OF DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES 

Data Collection Activity Month and Year 

Year 1 

Cohort 1 

Student Reading Tests—Baseline August-October 2006 

Teacher Survey August-November 2006 

Classroom Observations January-April 2007 

Student Reading Tests—Post-Test April-June 2007 

School Information Form April-June 2007 

Developer Survey April-May 2007 

Student Records May-October 2007 

Year 2 

Cohort 1 

Student Reading Tests—Follow Up April-October 2008 

Sixth-Grade Teacher Survey April-October 2008 

Cohort 2 

Student Reading Tests—Baseline July-November 2007 

Classroom Observations January-May 2008 

Teacher Survey—Students’ Use of Informational Text January-May 2008 

Student Reading Tests—Post-Test April-July 2008 

Teacher Time Allocation Form April-June 2008 

Developer Survey April-May 2008 

Student Records May-October 2008 
17 

 

implementation. Trained observers used the forms to record, primarily in yes/no format, the 

occurrence of 7 to 28 teaching practices, depending on the intervention.15, 16 

The fidelity observation (one per teacher) was conducted only for teachers who reported 

using the curriculum. Treatment teachers were asked to schedule an observation in the spring at a 

time when they would be using the reading comprehension intervention. If teachers reported they 

had never or were no longer using the curriculum, the fidelity observation was not conducted 

(see Chapter II, Section C for information on the relatively minor extent to which this occurred). 

However, to create a full picture of the extent to which treatment teachers implemented the 

interventions, our analysis of implementation fidelity (presented in Chapter II) includes all 

teachers who were expected to implement each intervention (the analysis treats nonimplementing teachers as not having engaged in the fidelity form behaviors). In particular, ones 

and zeros, respectively, were used in the data file to indicate whether a teacher engaged in or did 

not engage in a behavior listed on each curriculum’s fidelity form. For teachers who reported 

they had never or were no longer using the curriculum, zeros were entered in the data file for all 

fidelity form behavior variables. 

Observations of Instructional Practices Not Linked to Specific Curricula Provided a Basis 

for Assessing Differences in Teacher Practice. Structured observations across both treatment 

and control classrooms were conducted to provide descriptive information on the teaching 

practices in use in study classrooms. Unlike the fidelity observations described above, these 

observations focused on behaviors that reading experts posit as contributing to reading 

comprehension, rather than on the specific procedures developed by each curriculum developer. 

This approach—which provides a snapshot of the reading instruction fifth-grade students 

received from teachers using expository texts—measures how much teachers used specific 

vocabulary and comprehension-related teaching practices. 

The ERC Classroom Observation Instrument, designed by a team of experts in reading 

instruction and classroom observation, was structured so that study team observers could record 

tallies of the number of times teachers displayed the instructional behaviors.17 This approach was 

favored over the alternative approach of requiring observers to make more global judgments of 

the extent to which each behavior was observed, because the former approach was believed to be 

more likely to yield an unbiased measure of performed behaviors. 

15For one intervention, these yes/no items were supplemented by questions about the focus of comprehension, 

vocabulary, and writing instruction, the length of instructional rotations and the number of students in the rotation, 

and the type of program materials used. 

16The fidelity forms provide data on whether or not teachers engaged in a behavior; they do not provide data on 

the number of times the teachers engaged in each behavior or the quality of the behaviors. 

17Tallies (or counts) of the number of times teachers engaged in these teaching practices were used to create 

scales summarizing teachers’ practices. The process of creating these scales involved three main steps: (1) coding 

the tallies into ordinal categories, (2) conducting an exploratory factor analysis to determine conceptual groupings of 

items, and (3) estimating an item response theory (IRT) model using the categorical variables formed in the first 

step. These steps are explained in detail in Chapter II, Section D and Appendix F. Appendix I presents key 

descriptive statistics (such as means and standard deviations) for the full set of fidelity and ERC observation items. 
18 

 

The team of reading experts determined the critical behaviors to be recorded. Based on a 

review of prominent reading research (including Palincsar and Brown 1984 and Rosenshine et al. 

1996), they identified the key behaviors associated with improved reading achievement, 

developed measures of those behaviors, and then refined the measures using trial observations of 

classroom teachers. 

The behaviors identified for the ERC form (and the teacher practice scales based on those 

behaviors) were indeed related to student test score outcomes observed in this evaluation. Two of 

the three scales created (the Reading Strategy Guidance and Classroom Management scales) 

were statistically significantly related to follow-up student test scores (see Appendix F for more 

information on how criterion validity was assessed). 

The behaviors recorded on the ERC form comprised practices related to comprehension and 

vocabulary. Observers documented occurrences of eight comprehension-related behaviors, such 

as activating prior knowledge, providing explicit instruction on how to use comprehension 

strategies, and asking students to justify their responses. For each behavior, observers recorded 

the number of times the practice occurred in the form of (1) teacher modeling; (2) teacher 

explaining, reviewing, providing examples, or elaborating; or (3) student practice. Six behaviors 

related to vocabulary were tallied. Observers noted, for example, the number of times teachers 

provided an explanation or definition or the number of times teachers provided examples, 

contrasting examples, multiple meanings, or elaborations on student responses. 

Analysis of teacher behavior data was based on observations conducted on one day—when 

informational texts were used—for each treatment and control teacher. Observations were 

conducted in January through April 2007, so teachers had time over the first part of the school 

year to become familiar and practiced with the new curriculum. Study staff observed any class 

period in which teachers were using informational text, including reading/language arts, science, 

social studies, and test preparation.18 Observers tallied the targeted behaviors in 10-minute 

intervals (recording up to 11 tallies within each interval) and observed as many intervals in 

which informational text was used as occurred (up to 10 intervals within each class period), to 

capture all instruction involving informational text. We conducted observations of 98 percent of 

the teachers in the first study year.19 On average, classrooms were observed 1.8 times during the 

day of observations (this ranged from a minimum of 1 time to a maximum of 3 times).20

Classrooms were observed for 49 minutes during the day of observations, on average (this 

ranged from a minimum of 15 minutes to a maximum of 123 minutes). 

18In departmentalized schools, all teachers who taught a given classroom of students for reading/language arts, 

science, or social studies were considered a teaching unit, and all were observed. 

19Response rates for each arm of the study (four treatment groups and one control group) are provided in 

Appendix E. 

20Although classrooms, on average, were observed multiple times during the day, they were only observed for 

a single day, which may reduce the reliability of the teacher practice scales based on the ERC data (relative to 

observations conducted over multiple days). The teacher practice scales based on a single day of observations still 

allow us to calculate valid estimates of treatment/control differences on the scales (presented in Chapter II), but the 

correlations based on these scales (presented in the correlational analyses in Chapter V) may be attenuated. 
19 

 

Observers participated in four days of training, and inter-rater reliability of at least 

80 percent was achieved during the training. The training included detailed explanations of 

behavior items and practice observing videotaped classes. Each observer who achieved at least 

80 percent reliability with a master trainer (defined as within one tally for each item in the time 

interval) was certified to conduct classroom observations for the study. 

Assessments of inter-rater reliability continued during data collection to ensure that no 

erosion of consistency had occurred. Pairings of a master trainer with each observer at least once 

during the first two weeks of observation, coupled with randomly assigned pairings of regular 

observers throughout the field period, provided inter-rater reliability data on 25 percent of the 

teachers and classrooms observed.21 A variety of measures were used to assess inter-rater 

reliability, including simple sums of tallies and mean tallies for each teacher across the 

10-minute intervals. Later, we computed scales from the tallies (see Chapter II, Section D and 

Appendix F), and the inter-rater reliability for the three scales ranged from 0.94 to 0.98. 

Developer Survey Provided Data on Costs of Implementing the Programs. Since treatment 

schools did not have to pay to receive the reading program assigned to them for the study, we 

asked developers about the costs that non-study schools would incur to implement their program 

in the 2006-2007 school year. Using an ingredients approach (Levin and McEwan 2001), we 

identified all the items schools would need to purchase to implement and obtain support for the 

interventions. We then asked developers to specify the unit charge for each item, and we 

calculated total costs per reading comprehension program based on the quantities needed of each 

unit. This approach allowed us to compare (1) the implementation and support services that 

developers provided to study districts, schools, and teachers with what they typically provided to 

others outside the study purchasing their services in the 2006-2007 school year, and (2) program 

costs and implementation and support services provided across developers. 

(ii) Data to Describe Teachers, Schools, and Students 

An essential part of documenting study results is describing the participants and assessing 

the similarity of the treatment and control groups. Data collection therefore included a Teacher 

Survey, School Information Form, student assessments, and Student Records Form. 

Teacher Survey Obtained Data on Teacher Characteristics and Attitudes. The teacher 

survey data collected allowed the study team to describe the teachers participating in the study, 

assess the similarity of treatment and control group teacher characteristics, and examine the 

relationship between teacher characteristics and intervention impacts. The Teacher Survey—

conducted in treatment and control schools in August through November 2006 (as teachers 

began the first study year)—included items about the teacher’s background and experience, 

grade levels taught, educational credentials, gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The survey also 

included items from School Professional Culture and Teacher Efficacy scales (see below for 

details on these scales). For treatment teachers only, the survey contained questions about the 

21When a behavior was not observed during an interval, observers recorded a tally of zero. Reliability was 

computed both with and without these zeroes (the latter was done to guard against inflation of inter-rater reliability). 
20 

 

training they received on the study curriculum. Treatment teachers were asked to rate the training 

on various dimensions and to indicate how well prepared to use the curriculum they felt as a 

result of the training. 

In nondepartmentalized schools, the questionnaire was given to all fifth-grade teachers. In 

departmentalized schools, the survey was usually administered to reading/language arts teachers 

(in a few treatment schools it was given to science or social studies teachers instead because they 

had received the intervention training and the reading/language arts teachers had not). A 

response rate of 93 percent was achieved. Item responses were used to create the following 

scales (see Appendix F for details): 

• Teacher Efficacy. This scale was included on the Teacher Survey because it is 

correlated with teachers’ ability to benefit from professional development (Sparks 

1988).22 It is based on 12 items from the Teacher Survey developed for this study 

(items used with permission from Hoy and Woolfolk 1993). These items ask about 

teachers’ attitudes about student engagement, instructional strategies, and classroom 

management. The reliability of this scale was .90. 

• School Professional Culture. This scale was designed to capture conditions in 

schools that affect quality of instruction (Consortium on Chicago School Research 

1999; Carlisle 2003). It is based on 35 items from the Teacher Survey developed for 

this study and reflects teachers’ perceptions of the culture in their school, including 

relationships with colleagues, access to professional development, experiences with 

changes being implemented in their school, and leadership support in their school. 

The reliability of this scale was .87. 

School Information Forms Captured Data on School Characteristics. At the end of the 

first study year (between May and October 2007), schools provided information that could help 

describe the study context, contribute school-level variables to the impact analysis, and permit 

the study team to examine the relationship between impacts and conditions in schools. Items on 

the form included school enrollment, the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches, the percentage classified as ELL, and the textbooks, basal reading series, and special 

programs or supplementary curricula the schools were using for reading instruction just before 

the study began. Data were collected from 94 percent of the schools. 

Baseline Data on Students Were Collected from Tests and Records. Data on student 

achievement levels were used to characterize the student sample at baseline. Starting in the third 

week of school (after enrollment had settled and parental consent had been obtained), the study 

team administered two standardized tests to fifth graders. Table I.6 describes the norming 

samples and presents reliability and validity statistics for these two assessments (and a third 

administered at follow up). Descriptions of the two baseline tests are as follows:

22The items included on the Teacher Survey are an abbreviated version of a teacher efficacy scale (Hoy and 

Woolfolk 1993; Gibson and Dembo 1984). 
21 

TABLE I.6 

FEATURES OF TESTS USED IN THE STUDY 

Characteristic

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation 

(GRADE), Passage Comprehension Subtest Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF) 

Educational Testing Serv

Reading Comp

General Information 

Commercially available norm-referenced, groupadministered reading assessment. The Passage Comprehension subtest measures students’ ability to comprehend extended text as a whole. Students read a passage and then answer multiple-choice questions about the passage. Level 5, Form A was used for grade 5 students, and Level 6, Form A was used for grade 6 students. (Two alternative forms at each test level are available.) 

Commercially available norm-referenced, groupadministered assessment of silent reading fluency. The test measures the speed with which students can recognize the individual words in a series of printed passages that are printed in uppercase without punctuation or spaces between words. 

Two pairs of tests dEvaluation of Reading one pair for students in gin grade 6. The tests comprehend expository emphasizing the reading one emphasizing the rpassages. Students read multiple-choice questions 

Norm Sample National norms for the full test are based on samples of 

students in 46 states—16,408 in spring 2000 and 17,024 in fall 2000. Norms for the Passage Comprehension subtest are as follows: fifth-grade norms are based on 473 students in spring and 570 students in fall; sixthgrade norms are based on 539 students in spring and 513 in fall. The average student in the norm sample has a standard score of 100, and the standard deviation of standard 

scores is 15. 

National norms are based on a sample of 1,898 students in 23 states tested in spring and fall of 2004. The average student in the norm sample has a standard score of 100, and the standard deviation of standard scores is 15. 

Not nationally normed. 

Reliability For the Level 5 Passage Comprehension subtest, splithalf reliability coefficient is .94. Alternate form 

reliability is .89. Test-retest reliability is .77 (corrected for the effects of restriction of range). For the Level 6 Passage Comprehension subtest, splithalf reliability coefficient is .94. Alternate form reliability is .88. Test-retest reliability is .94 (corrected for the effects of restriction of range). 

Alternate form reliabilities range from .83 to .87. Testretest reliabilities range from .85 to .88 (corrected for the 

effects of restriction of range). 

Internal consistency relithe four tests are: .85 for the grade 5 scienc.84 for the grade 5 social .82 for the grade 6 scienc.80 for the grade 6 social 

Validity Evidence of content, criterion-related, and construct 

validity. 

Evidence of content, criterion-related, and construct validity. 

Not provided. 

Grade Range PK – 12 2 – 12 5 and 6 Age Range Not provided. 7.0 – 18.11 Not provided. Number of Test Items 

Six passages, each with six questions. Twelve printed passages that become progressively more 

difficult in their content, vocabulary, and grammar. 

Five passages, each with 

Average Passage Length 

Level 5, Form A – 158 words Level 6, Form A – 195 words 

NA Grade 5: science test – 39

social studies test – 454 wGrade 6: science test – 55social studies test – 563 w
Table I.6 (continued) 

22 

Characteristic

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation 

(GRADE), Passage Comprehension Subtest Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF) 

Educational Testing Serv

Reading Comp

Readability Scores 

Level 5, Form A: Flesch-Kincaid grade levels range from 3.9 to 8.5. Mean=6.1. Lexile measures range from 510 to 1130. Mean=803. Level 6, Form A: Flesch-Kincaid grade levels range from 4.5 to 7.5. Mean=6.4. Lexile measures range from 630 to 1040. Mean=903. 

NA Grade 5 science passages

Flesch-Kincaid grade lMean=5.5. Lexile meaMean=850. Grade 5 social studies paFlesch-Kincaid grade lMean=5.2. Lexile meaMean=748. Grade 6 science passagesFlesch-Kincaid grade lMean=7.1. Lexile meaMean=1002. Grade 6 social studies paFlesch-Kincaid grade leMean=8.1. Lexile meaMean=1042. 

Test Time The subtest is untimed, but the estimated time for 

completion is 25 minutes. 

3 minutes The tests are untimed

completion is 30 minutes

SOURCES: Hammill et al., Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF), Examiner’s Manual, Austin, TX: Pro Ed, 2006; Williams, K. T., Group Rea

Evaluation (GRADE) Technical Manual, Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc., 2001. Information about the science and social studies 

technical report. 

NA = not available.
23 

• The Passage Comprehension subtest of the Group Reading Assessment and 

Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). The GRADE (published by Pearson Learning 

Group) is a multiple-choice, paper-and-pencil, group-administered, untimed test that 

measures baseline skills and student improvement in critical reading areas (Williams 

2001). The Passage Comprehension subtest measures the ability to comprehend 

extended text as a whole, using short passages in different genres and questions that 

“incorporate the metacognitive strategies of questioning, predicting, clarifying, and 

summarizing, as well as inclusion of a variety of sentence structures” 

(http://www.pearsonlearning.com). A response rate of 95 percent was achieved. 

• Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF). This paper-and-pencil, 

group-administered, timed test measures skills such as word identification, word 

meaning, and sentence structure, all of which are important for reading 

comprehension. Commonly known as the “slasher test,” this assessment presents 

words using uppercase letters without any spaces or punctuation and requires students 

to insert slashes between letters to distinguish words (http://www.proedinc.com). 

Since the test allows students only three minutes for completion, it was conducted on 

the same day as the baseline GRADE test. Ninety-four percent of students completed 

the TOSCRF test. 

The study team also asked schools to provide data on each student. Although these data 

were collected at the end of fifth grade, some stable items that serve as baseline student 

characteristics were obtained. The data included date of birth, gender, race/ethnicity, ELL and 

disability status, and eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch. Districts abstracted most or all of 

these data from their databases, with some data gathered manually by school staff or local study 

team staff. Overall, we obtained records for 96 percent of students. 

(iii) Data Used to Measure Student Outcomes 

Data on students’ post-test outcomes were collected from two sources at the end of the fifthgrade year (between April and June 2007). First, students were retested using the GRADE 

(Williams 2001) and an 88 percent completion rate was achieved. Second, students were tested 

for comprehension of social studies and science text, using assessments developed specifically 

for the study. 

The Educational Testing Service (ETS) developed tests to assess comprehension of 

informational text, drawing from its item bank and creating some new items (Educational 

Testing Service 2007a and 2007b). The multiple-choice, paper-and-pencil, group-administered, 

untimed assessments included either social studies or science passages. The questions asked 

about the passages’ main idea, significant details, vocabulary, and author’s purpose, and asked 

students to draw inferences. To reduce burden, half the students were randomly assigned to take 

the science test and half to take the social studies test. Generally, the tests were conducted within 

the same week (but not on the same day) in which the GRADE was administered. Eighty-seven 

percent of students completed the science or social studies test. 
24 

 

Cohort 1 Students Cohort 2 Students 

Study Year 1 

(2006-2007 

school year) 

• Cohort 1 students enter study as 

fifth graders 

• Interventions implemented with 

Cohort 1 treatment students 

• Administer pre-tests and post-tests 

• Not yet included in study 

Study Year 2 

(2007-2008 

school year) 

• Cohort 1 students remain in study 

as sixth graders 

• Interventions are not implemented 

with Cohort 1 students 

• Administer follow-up tests 

• Cohort 2 students enter study as 

fifth graders 

• Interventions implemented with 

Cohort 2 treatment students 

• Administer pre-tests and post-tests 

2. Second-Year Study Design 

The second year of the study was based largely upon the structure of the study’s first year, 

but with three key distinctions: 

1. Fewer curricula included in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year.

Nine of the 18 schools randomly assigned to implement Reading for Knowledge 

elected not to continue implementing it in their fifth-grade classrooms in the second 

year of the study. Due to this attrition, Reading for Knowledge was not included in 

the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year (in which fifth-grade teachers in 

treatment schools implemented the study interventions and their Cohort 2 students’ 

outcomes were compared to outcomes of Cohort 2 fifth-grade students in control 

schools; see text box for a summary of the two second year study components). 

2. Fewer schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second 

year. Because 18 Reading for Knowledge schools were not included and because 

10 other schools decided not to continue participating in the study’s second year,23

there were fewer schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the study’s 

second year. In total, 61 schools (of the 89 that participated in Year 1) participated in 

the fifth-grade component of the second study year. 

23Two Project CRISS schools (out of 17), two ReadAbout schools (out of 17), five Read for Real schools (out 

of 16), and one control school (out of 21) decided not to continue participating in the study’s second year. 
3. More schools participating due to the study’s sixth-grade component (in which 

follow-up tests were administered to Cohort 1 students at the end of the 2007-2008 

school year). Because many Cohort 1 students were attending different schools in 

sixth grade, a large number of schools were added to the study to facilitate the 

administration of follow-up tests to the first cohort of students. Cohort 1 students 

attended a total of 252 schools in the study’s second year, 176 of which permitted the 

study team to conduct follow-up student testing for this study component.24 

Second Year Study Components at a Glance 

• Fifth-grade component – In this component, a second cohort of fifth-grade students from a subset of 

the study’s original schools was added to the study, maintaining the original treatment assignments. 

Fifth-grade teachers in treatment schools implemented their assigned interventions and fifth-grade 

teachers in control schools continued teaching reading using methods they would have used in the 

absence of the study. Pre-tests and post-tests administered to students were used to assess the impact of 

the interventions on the second cohort of students. The rationale for including this component in the 

study is that impacts may be larger after schools and teachers have had one year of experience using the 

curricula. 

• Sixth-grade component – In this component, the first cohort of students (all but 64 of whom were in 

sixth grade in the study’s second year) was tracked for one additional year and follow-up tests were 

administered at the end of the school year to assess whether the interventions had statistically 

significant impacts one year after the end of their implementation. Fourteen sixth-grade students (0.2 

percent) had the same teacher in sixth grade as in fifth grade, but the study interventions were not

implemented in the second year when first-cohort students were in sixth grade. There are two main 

rationales for including this component in the study: (1) it is possible that impacts of the interventions 

could emerge in the second year even after the intervention implementation has ended and (2) to 

examine whether the negative effects of Reading for Knowledge observed in the first year continued 

into the second year. 

a. Interventions 

As noted above, the fifth-grade component of the second year included three of the four 

interventions that had been included in the first year of the study. Project CRISS, ReadAbout, 

and Read for Real were included in the fifth-grade component of the second year of the study, 

but, as noted above, Reading for Knowledge was not because 9 of the 18 Reading for Knowledge 

schools elected not to continue implementing the intervention in the second year. 

The design of the study did not call for the interventions to be implemented in the sixthgrade component of the study, and, indeed, the interventions were not implemented in that 

component. Rather, the design called for following first-cohort students for one additional year 

25 

 

24While we cannot rule out the possibility that the nonparticipation of 76 schools in the follow-up testing of 

sixth-grade students affected the findings from the study’s sixth-grade component, there were no statistically 

significant differences in the percentage of study students attending these nonparticipating schools between the four 

treatment groups and the control group. This suggests that the study’s impact findings should not be biased by these 

schools’ nonparticipation in follow-up testing. 
26 

after the end of the implementation of the interventions in the study’s first year (through the end 

of the 2007-2008 school year), to assess whether implementation in the study’s first year had 

longer-term effects on students’ outcomes (measured at the end of the study’s second year). 

Because this component is focused on assessing impacts of the interventions implemented in the 

study’s first year, impacts of all four interventions that were implemented in the first study year 

(including Reading for Knowledge) were estimated in the sixth-grade component of the second 

year of the study. 

b. District and School Recruiting 

The study team began recruiting school districts for the second year of the study in March 

2007. For the fifth-grade component of the second year of the study, the team focused on the 

10 districts and 89 schools that participated in the study in the first year, with the goal of 

recruiting all of them to participate in the second year. Ultimately, all 10 of the districts and 61 of 

the 89 schools participated in the second year. See Appendix B and Section d below for 

information on the number of schools participating in Year 2 by treatment group. 

For the sixth-grade component of the study’s second year, the team focused on recruiting all 

schools that the first cohort of students attended during the 2007-2008 school year. As noted 

above, this was a much larger number than the 89 schools that participated in the first year of the 

study, as many Cohort 1 students were attending different schools in the study’s second year, due 

to either moving on to middle school to attend sixth grade or moving to a neighborhood served 

by a different school in the district. Ultimately, we were able to administer follow-up tests to 

Cohort 1 students in 176 of the 252 schools that Cohort 1 students attended in the study’s second 

year. The 76 schools in which we were unable to administer follow-up tests were schools that 

included few study students, with an average of 7 study students per school (compared to an 

average of 33 study students per school in the 176 schools in which we were able to conduct 

follow-up testing). 

c. Treatment and Control Groups 

Schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year were in the 

same treatment or control group in the second year as in the first year. Students in the study’s 

sixth-grade component were classified according to their treatment status from the study’s first 

year. For example, students who attended Read for Real schools in the study’s first year are in 

the Read for Real group in the analyses for the study’s sixth-grade component, regardless of the 

school they attended in the study’s second year. Likewise, students who attended control schools 

in the study’s first year are in the control group for the analyses of the study’s sixth-grade 

component. This enabled the study team to assess the longer-term effectiveness of the single year 

of curricula implementation provided to students in the first year of the study. Because of the 

way in which multiple elementary schools fed into a single middle school serving sixth-grade 

students, first-cohort students from the treatment group could attend school in sixth grade with 

first-cohort students from the control group. For example, a student who attended Read for Real 

school “A” in fifth grade and a student who attended control school “B” in fifth grade could have 

both attended middle school “C” in sixth grade. It therefore follows that treatment students might 

be in the same classrooms as control students in sixth grade. Following the example above, these 
27 

two students might have been taught by teachers “D” and “E” respectively in fifth grade, and—in 

sixth grade when they were both attending school “C”—might have both been in a classroom 

taught by teacher “F.” Thirty percent of sixth-grade students attended the same school in sixthgrade as they did in fifth-grade (because their school’s grade structure included sixth grade). 

Very few sixth-grade students (0.2 percent) had the same teacher in sixth grade as in fifth grade. 

As noted above, none of the sixth-grade students received instruction in the study interventions 

in sixth grade. 

d. Study Participants 

The sixth-grade component of the second year of the study included 6,349 students who 

were attending 252 schools. The fifth-grade component of the second year of the study included 

4,142 students from 61 schools. Table I.7 shows sample sizes for each intervention group and the 

control group in the second year of the study (2007-2008 school year). 

Consistent with the first year—given the types of districts and schools being recruited—the 

schools participating in the second study year were statistically significantly different from 

schools nationwide in several respects. As in the first year, the schools included in the fifth-grade 

component of the second year of the study were statistically significantly more disadvantaged, 

larger, and more urban than the average U.S. school, and included higher percentages of black 

and Hispanic students (Table I.8). 

Because over 90 percent of the schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the 

second year of the study were schoolwide Title I schools, we also compared fifth-grade 

component study schools to schoolwide Title I schools in the U.S. to assess how similar they 

were to other Title I schools in the U.S. (Table I.9). Findings from those comparisons mirrored 

the findings presented above for schools participating in the first year of the study, showing that 

study schools were more likely than U.S. schoolwide Title I schools to be urban, to include a 

higher percentage of black students, and to include more students. 

The study team conducted similar comparisons for schools participating in the sixth-grade 

component of the second year of the study (Tables I.10 and I.11). The pattern of findings was the 

same as that described above for the schools participating in the fifth-grade component. In 

particular, the schools included in the sixth-grade component of the second year of the study 

were statistically significantly more disadvantaged, larger, and more urban than the average U.S. 

school, and included higher percentages of black and Hispanic students (Table I.10). A similar 

pattern was observed when the sixth-grade component schools were compared to schoolwide 

Title I schools in the U.S. (Table I.11). 

Some turnover of fifth-grade teachers was observed between the first and second study 

years. Table I.12 shows the number of teachers participating in the study in Year 1, the number 

participating in Year 2, and the number of Year 2 teachers that were either new to the study in 

the second year or were returning to the study for a second year after having participated in the 

study’s first year. The percentage of Year 1 teachers that remained in the study for a second year 

ranged from 41 percent for Read for Real to 71 percent for the control group. The Read for Real 

percentage reflects the fact that 11 of the 16 Read for Real schools from the first year of the 

study continued participating in the second year. A higher percentage of schools continued 
28 

TABLE I.7 

NUMBER OF STUDY DISTRICTS, SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN 

YEAR 2 

Intervention 

Number of 

Districts 

Number of 

Schools

Number of 

Teachers

Number of 

Studentsa

Sixth-Grade Component (Cohort 1 Follow Up) 

Project CRISS 10 133c 439d 1,319 

ReadAbout 10 114c 432d 1,245 

Read for Real 9b 124c 412d 1,228 

Reading for Knowledge 10 104c 420d 1,195 

Control Group 10 142c 365d 1,362 

Total 10 252e 907e 6,349 

Fifth-Grade Component (Cohort 2 Post-Test) 

Project CRISS 10 15 49 1,201 

ReadAbout 10 15 46 1,108 

Read for Real 9b 11 31 639 

Control Group 10 20 56 1,194 

Total 10 61 182 4,142 

a

This number includes all consenting students in the analysis sample. In spring 2008 (the end of the second year of 

the study), across all treatment groups, 75-76 percent of Cohort 1 students were tested at follow up, and 88 percent 

of Cohort 2 students in the analysis sample were tested at post-test. 

b

One district did not have enough participating schools to include all four intervention groups. The interventions that 

were assigned in that district were selected randomly. 

c

This refers to the number of schools that Cohort 1 students attended in the second study year. While some Cohort 1 

students remained in the same school in the second year, other students moved to a new school due to student 

mobility (for example, resulting from family relocation or matriculation to sixth grade). This resulted in a larger 

number of schools attended by Cohort 1 students in Year 2 than in Year 1. For example, Cohort 1 students in the 

ReadAbout intervention group attended 114 schools in the second year, compared to 17 in the first year. 

 

d

This refers to the number of science, social studies, and English/Language Arts teachers of Cohort 1 students in the 

second study year. For example, Cohort 1 students in the ReadAbout intervention group had 432 science, social 

studies, and English/Language Arts teachers in the second year, while Cohort 1 students in the Read for Real 

intervention group had 412 science, social studies, and English/Language Arts teachers in the second year. 

e

This total refers to the number of unique schools and teachers in Year 2 that are linked to sixth graders from 

Cohort 1. Because some Cohort 1 students from different treatment groups in Year 1 were enrolled in school with 

and had the same teachers as Cohort 1 students from other treatment groups in Year 2, the total number of schools 

and teachers in this row does not correspond to the sum of schools or teachers across the treatment and control 

groups in the five rows above this number. Fourteen Cohort 1 students (0.2 percent) had the same teacher in sixth 

grade as in fifth grade. Across all treatment and control groups, 1,912 Cohort 1 students (30 percent) attended the 

same school in fifth and sixth grade (because some study schools included sixth grade). Note that the study 

interventions were not implemented in any sixth-grade classrooms. 
29 

TABLE I.8 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIFTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY 

Characteristics U.S. Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage) 

Title I Eligible Schoolb 74.3 98.4 -24.1* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title Ib 49.5 95.1 -45.6* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage)c

Urban 28.9 68.9 -40.0* 0.00 

Urban fringe 30.0 18.0 12.0* 0.04 

Town and rural aread 41.1 13.1 28.0* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 14.9 16.1 -1.2 0.51 

Number of Students per School (Average) 449.8 574.0 -124.2* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)e 49.3 73.6 -24.3* 0.00 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage)f

White 56.2 24.2 32.0* 0.00 

Black 16.3 39.2 -22.9* 0.00 

Hispanic 20.0 31.9 -11.9* 0.00 

Asian 4.1 1.9 2.2 0.07 

Native American 2.0 0.9 1.0 0.39 

GRADE Score (Average) 100.0 100.6 -0.6 1.00 

Number of Schools 50,933 61 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). Data from the last row of the table are from two sources: 

(1) the study team’s baseline GRADE test administration, and (2) national GRADE norm information 

provided by the GRADE test’s developer. 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. Regular primary and 

middle schools are defined as public elementary/secondary schools that do not focus primarily on vocational, 

special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 1.7 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

c

Data are missing for 0.7 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

d

The town and rural area categories have been combined to protect school confidentiality. 

e

Data are missing for 3.6 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

f

Data are missing for 0.8 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
30 

TABLE I.9 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE FIFTH-GRADE COMPONENT OF THE SECOND YEAR OF 

THE STUDY, COMPARED TO SCHOOLWIDE TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Characteristics

U.S. 

Schoolwide 

Title I 

Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage)

 

Title I Eligible School 100.0 98.4 1.6* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title I 100.0 95.1 4.9* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage)b

Urban 39.2 68.9 -29.7* 0.00 

Urban fringe 22.0 18.0 4.0 0.45 

Town and rural areac 38.8 13.1 25.7* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 14.9 16.1 -1.2 0.51 

Number of Students per School (Average) 456.8 574.0 -117.2* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)d 69.3 73.6 -4.3 0.11 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage)b

White 38.2 24.2 14.0* 0.00 

Black 24.1 39.2 -15.1* 0.00 

Hispanic 30.7 31.9 -1.3 0.77 

Asian 3.3 1.9 1.3 0.24 

Native American 2.5 0.9 1.5 0.27 

Number of Schools 24,779 61 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms and that are 

schoolwide Title I eligible schools. Regular primary and middle schools are defined as public elementary/secondary 

schools that do not focus primarily on vocational, special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 0.6 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

c

The town and rural area categories have been combined to protect school confidentiality. 

d

Data are missing for 1.4 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having fifth-grade classrooms. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
31 

TABLE I.10 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE SIXTH-GRADE COMPONENT 

OF THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY 

Characteristics U.S. Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage) 

Title I Eligible School 70.2 81.9 -11.8* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title I 65.7 77.5 -28.9* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage)b

Urban 25.8 67.8 -42.0* 0.00 

Urban fringe 26.8 17.0 9.8* 0.01 

Town 12.0 2.6 9.4* 0.00 

Rural area 35.5 12.6 22.9* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 15.2 16.6 -1.4 0.17 

Number of Students per School (Average) 480.7 649.3 -168.6* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)c 49.2 63.2 -14.1* 0.00 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage)b

White 57.8 29.5 28.3* 0.00 

Black 15.6 33.3 -17.6* 0.00 

Hispanic 19.2 30.9 -11.7* 0.00 

Asian 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.92 

Native American 2.5 0.8 1.7* 0.02 

GRADE Score (Average) 100.0 100.0 0.0 1.00 

Number of Schools 35,687 230 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). Data from the last row of the table are from two sources: 

(1) the study team’s baseline GRADE test administration, and (2) national GRADE norm information 

provided by the GRADE test’s developer. 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms. Regular primary and 

middle schools are defined as public elementary and secondary schools that do not focus primarily on vocational, 

special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 0.9 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms. 

c

Data are missing for 2.2 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
32 

TABLE I.11 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS IN THE SIXTH-GRADE COMPONENT OF THE SECOND YEAR OF 

THE STUDY, COMPARED TO SCHOOLWIDE TITLE I SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES 

Characteristics

U.S. 

Schoolwide 

Title I 

Schoolsa

Schools 

in Study Difference p-value 

Schools Receiving Title I (Percentage) 

Title I Eligible School 100.0 81.9 18.1* 0.00 

Schoolwide Title I 100.0 77.5 22.5* 0.00 

School Location (Percentage)b

Urban 36.1 67.8 -31.2* 0.00 

Urban fringe 20.3 17.0 3.3 0.21 

Town 11.5 2.6 8.9* 0.00 

Rural area 32.1 12.6 19.5* 0.00 

Students per Teacher (Average) 15.5 16.6 -1.0 0.28 

Number of Students per School (Average) 474.3 649.3 -175.0* 0.00 

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 

Lunch (Percentage)c 69.3 63.2 6.0* 0.00 

Student Race/Ethnicity (Percentage)b

White 38.6 29.5 9.1* 0.00 

Black 23.2 33.3 -10.0* 0.00 

Hispanic 30.7 30.9 -0.2 0.92 

Asian 3.2 3.7 -0.4 0.49 

Native American 3.2 0.8 2.4* 0.01 

Number of Schools 16,121 230 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). 

a

Data include regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms and that are 

schoolwide Title I eligible schools. Regular primary and middle schools are defined as public elementary and 

secondary schools that do not focus primarily on vocational, special, or alternative education. 

b

Data are missing for 0.9 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms. 

c

Data are missing for 2.2 percent of regular primary and middle schools that reported having sixth-grade classrooms. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
 33 

TABLE I.12 

FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS IN STUDY SAMPLE IN YEARS 1 AND 2, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Year 1 

Total Number of Teachers Participating in 

the Study 59 52 50 54 53 

Year 2 

Number of Year 1 Teachers Remaining in 

the Study 42 35 34 22 n.a. 

Number of Teachers Who are New to the 

Study 12 18 12 9 n.a. 

Total Number of Teachers Participating in 

the Study 54 53 46 31 n.a. 

n.a. = not applicable. 

participating in the second year in the control group (20 of 21 schools), the CRISS group (15 of 

17 schools), and the ReadAbout group (15 of 17 schools). 

We conducted statistical tests of the differences in the percentages of teachers remaining in 

the study across groups to address the potential concern that the interventions had an impact on 

the percentage of teachers that remained in the study. Findings from two sets of analyses suggest 

that the interventions did not affect teacher attrition. In the first analysis—in which we compared 

the percentages of teachers remaining in the study between the treatment and control groups—

there was one statistically significant difference (fewer Read for Real teachers than control group 

teachers remained in the study). In the second analysis—in which we repeated the first analysis 

while restricting the sample to schools that participated in the study in both years—there were no 

statistically significant differences in the percentages of teachers remaining in the study across 

the groups. This second comparison was important because a larger number of schools in the 

Read for Real group elected not to participate in the second year of the study compared to the 

other groups. Taken together, these analyses suggest that the interventions had no impact on 

teacher attrition, and that that the one significant difference observed between the Read for Real 

group and the control group was due to schools (not teachers) leaving the study. 

e. The Sample Design Ensured an 80 Percent Probability of Detecting Impacts in the 

Study’s Second Year of at Least 0.14 Standard Deviations for Fifth Graders and 

0.25 Standard Deviations for Sixth Graders 

We were able to detect impacts of individual interventions on post-test scores of the second 

cohort of students of at least 0.14 standard deviations with 80 percent probability. This minimum 
 34 

 

detectable effect is based on an intraclass correlation, school- and student-level R2

 values that 

were calculated using regression adjustment, and an adjustment for multiple comparisons.25 With 

respect to teacher practices in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year, the study 

had less power due to smaller sample sizes of teachers and larger intraclass correlations (in the 

range of 0.46 to 0.50). For example, the smallest difference on the Reading Strategy Guidance 

scale of a single intervention that the study could detect with 80 percent probability was 0.91.26

For the regression-adjusted impacts on follow-up scores of the first cohort of students, we were 

able to detect effects of at least 0.25 standard deviations with 80 percent probability.27 

f. Data Collection 

The data collected in the second year of the study differed from the data collected in the first 

study year depending on the component of the study. The sixth grade component of the study’s 

second year included two data collection activities. First, we administered follow-up tests to 

students at the end of the 2007-2008 school year (when first-cohort students were in sixth grade), 

which was approximately one year after the end of the intervention implementation. This 

permitted the study team to examine whether there were impacts of the interventions in the 

second year, after Cohort 1 students were no longer using the interventions. 

The tests administered at follow up included: 

• GRADE Passage Comprehension Subtest. A response rate of 76 percent was 

obtained. 

• ETS assessments of reading comprehension in science and social studies for 

sixth-grade students. Students were assigned to take the test in the same content area 

in which they took the test in Year 1. Seventy-five percent of students completed 

either the science or social studies test.28 

Second, we administered a teacher survey to all sixth-grade teachers who taught 

English/language arts, science, or social studies. This survey gathered information on teachers’ 

25We obtained an intraclass correlation of 0.12, a school-level R2

 of 0.94, and a student-level R2 of 0.51 for 

post-test scores of the second cohort of students. 

26The minimum detectable effects reported for impacts on teacher practices are the effects that the study could 

detect with 80 percent probability (the standard level of power for reporting minimum detectable effects). The study 

could detect smaller effects with lower probability. Therefore, some of the reported statistically significant impacts 

are smaller than the effect sizes stated here. In addition, the minimum detectable effects reported in this paragraph 

are effects for the average intervention. Some of the interventions might have larger or smaller minimum detectable 

effects depending on the sample sizes by intervention. 

27We obtained an intraclass correlation of 0.18, a school-level R2

 of 0.77, and a student-level R2 of 0.36 for 

follow-up test scores of the first cohort of students. 

28See Appendix E for information on response rates by treatment group for both second year study 

components. 
 35 

 

education background, teaching experience, and certification. A response rate of 54 percent was 

obtained. 

In the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year, the study team essentially repeated 

the first year of the study with a new cohort of fifth-grade students.29 The same data were 

collected, with four exceptions. In the second year: 

1. The study team did not collect school-level data using the school information form. 

Instead, information on schools was collected from the Common Core of Data

(National Center for Education Statistics 2008). 

2. We administered a survey to fifth-grade teachers to obtain information on the amount 

of time students in their class spent using informational text in a typical week. 

Treatment group teachers were also asked to indicate how much time their students 

spent using the study curricula in a typical week. This form allowed the study team to 

examine (1) the extent to which treatment teachers were using the study curricula and 

(2) whether the interventions affected the amount of time students spent working with 

informational text. Eighty-five percent of teachers completed this form. 

3. We asked teachers to fill out a form indicating how they allocated their time during a 

given school day. The time log was designed to show how much time teachers spent 

on various activities, including time spent on reading activities and time spent on the 

study curricula (for treatment teachers). This form also allowed treatment teachers to 

report whether any activities needed to be eliminated or reduced to make room for the 

implementation of the study curricula. This form allowed the study team to (1) assess 

whether the interventions affected the type of activities in which teachers were 

engaged (and the amount of time spent on those activities) and (2) determine whether 

or not teachers reduced the amount of time devoted to a particular activity, or 

eliminated an activity entirely, so that instruction in the study curricula could be 

provided (including how much time on average teachers reported reducing those 

activities). Eighty-nine percent of teachers completed this form. 

4. The teacher survey administered in the first year of the study was not administered to 

all fifth-grade teachers. In the second year, it was only administered to teachers who 

participated in the study in the first year but who had not completed the survey during 

that year. 

In the fall of 2007, 97 percent of Cohort 2 students took each of the pre-test assessments—

the GRADE Passage Comprehension Subtest and the TOSCRF. Response rates on the GRADE 

and ETS comprehension assessments administered in spring 2008 of the second year to Cohort 2 

students were 88 percent. Response rates on the classroom observations were 92 percent on the 

ERC and ranged from 81 to 93 percent on the fidelity forms, with an overall response rate of 

88 percent across all fidelity forms. 

29See section 1 above for information on the data collection conducted in the first year of the study. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
37 

 

II. IMPLEMENTATION FINDINGS 

In impact studies, understanding the extent and quality of implementation can help 

researchers interpret statistically significant impact results (or the absence of impacts), form 

hypotheses about whether and how subsequent implementation experiences might yield different 

impact results, and understand whether schools are able to implement the interventions in a way 

that is consistent with developers’ recommendations. 

In this study, implementation is measured from two perspectives, as recommended by 

Gersten et al. (2005). The first, and most common, perspective focuses on assessing the extent to 

which teachers demonstrate adherence to procedures or practices deemed critical for 

implementing a particular intervention.30 On this study, the developers specified the set of 

practices deemed essential to implementation, from which the study team developed fidelity 

forms that could be used by observers in the classroom to capture whether teachers were 

engaging in these practices. This approach is appealing because it corresponds to the common 

understanding of faithful “program implementation,” and the forms can be easy for observers to 

complete. 

However, this method also has several drawbacks (Gersten et al. 2000, 2005; Desimone 

2002). Developers often find it difficult to identify the critical elements of their intervention with 

precision. Some developers’ materials are detailed and exacting, while others allow teachers 

great latitude. These differences correspond to variation in the level of detail that observers can 

be asked to look for in the classroom. As a result, 80 percent implementation of Intervention A 

may not be equivalent to, or as difficult to achieve as, 80 percent implementation of Intervention 

B. In addition, some programs provide teachers with menus of options to choose from for part of 

the lesson (e.g., choosing either a vocabulary development or writing activity—or both—for 

small group follow-up instruction, depending on time allocations for that day). Differences in 

quality of implementation may also go unnoted with procedural checklists. Two teachers may 

achieve identical scores, one following procedures in a rote fashion and the other in a dynamic 

and engaging fashion (Gersten et al. 2005). 

The alternative perspective involves a common observational system to assess teaching 

practices, regardless of the details of the curricula observed. For example, the Project Follow 

Through implementation study of seven instructional models (Stallings 1975) used a common 

observational procedure to describe reading and mathematics instruction in classrooms operating 

under the seven intervention models as well as control group classrooms. 

Researchers have used this approach to examine the instructional practices associated with 

enhanced academic outcomes, using the same definition of practices, regardless of the 

intervention (for example, Cooley and Leinhardt 1980; Rosenshine and Stevens 1986; Dynarski 

et al. 2007; Glazerman et al. 2008). In a multi-treatment impact study, consistent definitions of 

30O’Donnell (2008) defines fidelity of implementation as “the determination of how well an intervention is 

implemented in comparison with the original program design” (pp. 33-34). 
38 

 

instructional practices make it possible to use observational measures of implementation to 

describe how the various treatments differ from each other and from the control condition, and to 

use them as mediating variables in the impact analysis. 

Both approaches were used in this evaluation. We developed and used a procedural fidelity 

form for each of the four interventions to gauge whether teachers actually followed the 

procedures specified by the developers. This form did not rate or rank the quality of 

implementation of a procedure. Instead, it measured the absence or presence of the procedures 

specified by the developers. We also developed a common observational system for use in all 

intervention and control classrooms when students and teachers were working with informational 

text, to record the frequency of teaching practices that earlier small-scale experimental research 

suggested were associated with enhanced comprehension outcomes. 

In Sections A and B below, we summarize the features of the four interventions and the 

extent of preparation and training the teachers in the intervention classrooms received. Section C 

presents results from the intervention-specific fidelity analysis, focusing on two aspects of 

fidelity: (1) fidelity in the second year of intervention implementation for the study and 

(2) comparisons of fidelity between the first and second years of implementation of the study 

interventions. Section D presents descriptive information on teacher practices in the second year 

of implementing the interventions, including comparisons of educational practices across 

treatment and control groups using three scales derived from the observational data. This section 

also includes comparisons of instructional practices between the first and second years of the 

study. Section E presents information on teachers’ allocation of time in the second year of the 

study, including the amount of time students typically spent using informational text in a typical 

week and the amount of time treatment group teachers spent using their assigned intervention in 

a given day. 

A. INTERVENTION FEATURES 

All four study interventions share a set of common comprehension strategies, instructional 

strategies, and student activities, but there are some differences in emphasis (Table II.1) and cost. 

All of the interventions focus on teaching students four core reading comprehension strategies 

(although they are not always labeled in the same way): 

• Elements of text structure. This strategy involves an awareness of the structure and 

organizational elements of text and how they can be used to enhance comprehension 

of text. Elements of text structures31 in informational text include headings, 

subheadings, visuals, and graphics, and organizational elements include cause and 

effect, compare and contrast, problem and solution, and sequencing. Project CRISS 

calls this strategy “author’s craft.” ReadAbout refers to “reading skills,” while Read 

31There is variation in the terminology used to describe these strategies by the developers on this study. For 

example, headings and subheadings are categorized as text structures by CRISS but as text features by Reading for 

Knowledge. 
39 

TABLE II.1 

SUMMARY OF READING COMPREHENSION PROGRAMS 

Program/ Developer Program Focus Teacher Training Instructional Componentsa 

Project CRISS/ CRISS 

Focuses on five metacognitive Keys to Learning to help students become strategic learners: (1) background knowledge; (2) purpose setting; (3) author’s craft (text structure); (4) active involvement (writing, discussion); and (5) organization (transforming information using writing and graphic organizers). 

18 hours of initial training, 6 hours of follow-up training. Monthly trainer visits to each school to observe teachers and provide feedback. CRISS Cornerstones manual and DVD provide follow-up lessons for teacher learning community teams. Includes administrator and parent training components. Year 2

• New and returning teachers 

participated in the initial and follow-up training listed above. 

• Building facilitators (CRISS 

leaders who assist other teachers with implementation) received 3 additional hours of training. 

• Teacher’s edition of Learning How 

to Learn provides detailed lesson plans for each chapter. Recommended use: 30-45 minutes per day. 

• Strategies are learned and practiced 

using Tough Terminators, a science trade book. 

• Uses variety of graphic organizers 

and note-taking, discussion, vocabulary, and writing strategies. 

• Students apply strategies to regular 

science and social studies texts. 

SLfoin(4tw

ReadAbout/ Scholastic 

Students are taught 10 comprehension skills: identifying author’s purpose, identifying cause and effect, comparing and contrasting, drawing conclusions, distinguishing fact and opinion, locating main idea and details, making inferences, identifying problem and solution, sequencing events, and summarizing. Students also learn seven reading strategies: visualizing, setting a purpose, monitoring, rereading, summarizing, questioning, and repairing. 

6 hours of initial training (plus access to the online course, Improving Reading Comprehension), 6 hours of follow-up training in the fall, 6 hours of follow-up training in the spring. Year 2

• New teachers participated in the 

initial and follow-up training listed above. 

• Returning teachers received 6 

hours of refresher training in Year 2. 

• Adaptive computer software used 

three times per week for 20 minutes. Software teaches comprehension skills, vocabulary, and content knowledge. 

• Students use offline materials once 

per week for 20 minutes. Offline materials include whole-class or small-group lessons on comprehension skills, vocabulary strategies, text types, or writing skills. Students rotate among computer, teacher-led, and independent reading groups. 

• Teacher materials include 

suggestions for English language learners and differentiated instruction. 

TsotoarscbRthanwIntoto
Table II.1 (continued) 

40 

Program/ Developer Program Focus Teacher Training Instructional Components 

a

Read for Real/ Zaner-Bloser 

Each unit focuses on (1) a Before Reading strategy (previewing, activating prior knowledge, or setting a purpose); (2) a During Reading strategy (making connections, interacting with text, or clarifying understanding); and (3) an After Reading strategy (recalling, evaluating, or responding). 

12 hours of initial training, which includes an overview of researchbased reading strategies, as well as training on using the curriculum. Follow up includes six hours of on-site training, plus telephone support and an online teacher support forum. Year 2

• New teachers participated in the 

initial training listed above but did not receive follow-up training. 

• Returning teachers did not 

receive additional training in Year 2.

• Each unit has three reading 

selections for students to learn, practice, and apply a comprehension strategy. 

• Lessons take 30-45 minutes per day. • Teacher Guide includes a script for 

guiding reading and discussion of each story, activities for English language learners, writing activities, and comprehension tests. 

RlethureNin pabwfoIn

Reading for Knowledge/ Success for All (SFA) 

Program focuses on four key comprehension strategies: (1) clarifying, (2) predicting, (3) summarizing, and (4) questioning. Includes vocabulary-building strategies in each lesson. 

12 hours of initial training, 6 hours of follow-up training, and quarterly teacher meetings with SFA trainer. Four professional development videos guide teacher learning community meetings. 

• Detailed daily lesson plans for 17 

units (eight days each) covering 136 lessons. Lessons take 45 minutes per day. 

• Lessons follow same process: Set 

the stage; Active instruction; Teamwork (paired reading, team talk); and Reflection (teams share with class). 

• The four key strategies are 

introduced to students using videobased lessons. 

• Major cooperative learning 

component in the program. 

RarfoGstPcto u

aThe amount of time reported for lessons is based on programs’ recommended usage, not on actual usage by teachers in the study. 
41 

 

for Real calls this practice “interacting with text” and Reading for Knowledge 

considers these elements to be part of the “predicting strategy.” 

• Self-questioning. This strategy involves asking oneself questions about the text 

before, during, and after reading as a way to improve comprehension. Project CRISS 

and Read for Real call this “setting a purpose,” while ReadAbout and Reading for 

Knowledge call this “questioning.” 

• Clarifying understanding. This strategy involves methods for clarifying the meaning 

of words, sentences, or passages that a student does not understand. These practices 

are called “fix-up strategies” by Project CRISS, “monitoring, rereading, or repairing” 

by ReadAbout, “clarifying understanding” by Read for Real, and simply “clarifying” 

by Reading for Knowledge. 

• Summarizing. The summarizing strategy involves identifying the main ideas and 

important details in a passage and providing succinct summaries either verbally or in 

writing. Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Reading for Knowledge call this 

summarizing, and Read for Real labels it “recalling.” 

Two of the curricula go beyond these four core strategies and provide students with 

additional comprehension tools (see box below for a summary of the intervention features 

discussed in this section). Project CRISS and Read for Real also teach students to think about 

what they already know concerning the topic before they start reading or while they are reading. 

They call this strategy variously “background knowledge,” “activating prior knowledge,” or 

“making connections.” 

All of these interventions also have certain instructional methods or student activities in 

common. For example, all of the curricula include teacher-directed instruction; such instruction 

can include explaining, modeling, and guided practice. Delivering the four interventions also 

involves student practice activities, such as having students read aloud or complete worksheets or 

graphic organizers. 

Other instructional methods figure in three of the four curricula. Three of the programs 

(Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Reading for Knowledge) have students practice their reading 

comprehension skills and strategies as they read selected science and social studies trade 

books.32 All of the programs except Project CRISS provide assessments at the end of each unit. 

Two programs use technology as a teaching tool and for student practice—ReadAbout includes 

adaptive computer software so that students practice the comprehension strategies using text at 

the appropriate reading level for them and Reading for Knowledge includes four videotapes that 

introduce and model the program’s four reading strategies. Reading for Knowledge also includes 

a cooperative learning component in which teachers track individual and team participation 

“points” to provide incentives for both individual and group effort. 

32Trade books are books published for a general readership rather than specifically for the classroom and are 

distributed to the general public through booksellers. 
42 

SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION FEATURES 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Comprehension Strategies 

Identification of text structure √ √ √ √

Self-questioning √ √ √ √

Clarifying understanding √ √ √ √

Summarizing √ √ √ √

Activating prior knowledge √ √

Instructional Methods and Student Activities 

Teacher-directed instruction √ √ √ √

Student practice √ √ √ √

End-of-unit assessments √ √ √

Practice skills using content-area trade book(s) √ √ √

Technology used as teaching tool √ √

Cooperative learning component √

Although the four curricula tested in the evaluation have much in common in terms of 

comprehension strategies, instructional methods, and student activities, they are offered to 

educators under different pricing structures (Table II.2). One developer includes all curriculum 

components in one price, while the others list separate prices for various curriculum components. 

For example, to implement Read for Real, districts would pay one price for all program materials 

(based on the number of participating classrooms), with teacher training and support included in 

that amount. To implement ReadAbout, districts would pay a per-classroom price that would 

encompass licenses, classroom kits, and initial training. For Project CRISS, on the other hand, 

districts would pay separate prices for training and for optional materials. The Reading for 

Knowledge developer was unable to provide a purchase price because the program was adapted 

from Success for All for the study and its pricing structure had not yet been determined. 

Despite these differences in pricing arrangements, it is possible to discern how prices vary 

across curricula and for districts of different sizes. Costs for the intervention programs range 

from roughly $3,000 up to $187,000 per district, depending on the size of the school district and 

certain standardizing assumptions (Table II.3). Costs that would have been incurred by non-study 

districts to purchase these programs in the 2006-2007 or 2007-2008 school years range from 

about $3,000 to almost $14,000 for a sample small district to about $34,000 to $187,000 for a 

sample large district, after various discounts for districts with many schools have been 

considered. The costs for all the programs would drop after the first year, when materials have 

been purchased, software has been installed, and experienced teachers within the district may be 

able to provide some or all of the training. Costs would fall most dramatically for ReadAbout, 

since its licenses (the most expensive component of the program) are valid in perpetuity. 
43 

TABLE II.2 

PROGRAM COSTS

Costs Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

Base Cost Program components are purchased 

separately 

Licenses:a $6,000 for 60 students and two classroom kits; $9,500 for 

100 students and three kits; $19,500 for 360 students and 12 kits. Kits include teacher materials (Topic Planners [cards that preview the ReadAbout software passages and vocabulary]; Know About ReadAbout Guide; assessments, reports, and the Differentiated Instruction Guide; the ReadAbout Software Manual; the SAM software manual; and the SAM Reference Guide) and classroom materials for students (SmartFiles [cards that extend the software], a poster, and Bonus Card Stickers). Each school receives Professional Papers, ReadAbout Installation Kits, and an SRI Installation Kit. Licenses also cover initial teacher training. 

Program is purchased by buying the program materials: $475.75/ classroom (25 students); $18.99/extra copy 

Costs Not Included in Base Cost Initial Training 

$45/person if district provides trainer; $55/person with national trainer, plus $800/day per trainer (for two to four days of training), plus travel expensesb

No additional cost for the one day of initial training No additional cost if entire 

district is participating; otherwise, $1,000/day (two days) per trainer, plus travel expenses 

N

Follow-Up Training 

$800/day trainer honorarium (for one to two days of training), plus the trainer’s travel expensesb

$2,500/one-day training for up to about 20 teachers ($2,000/half-day 

seminar x two seminars = $4,000 x 37 percent discount for multiple seminars = $2,500; for two or more trainings, there is a 44 percent discount). 

No follow-up training N

Additional Services and Support 

Parent workshop: Cost per booklet, $4 for 1-50 parents, $3 for 51-200 parents, and $2 for 201+ parents Email and telephone consultation were 

added for schools in the study. 

$2,500/school for technology installationc

$2,800/school for premium technical support (web, telephone, emails)d

A website with an electronic bulletin board, a helpdesk, and email or telephone consultation were added for schools in the study. 

N

Materials Optional: Classroom set, $550: one 

teacher’s manual with Critterman DVD, 31 Tough Terminators (student book), and 30 student workbooks; extra student book, $10; extra student workbook, $8; video, $445 each; posters, $125/set of 30 posters; administrator materials, $55/each; Cornerstones (follow-up booklet and CD-ROM for teachers’ independent use), $35/each 

No additional materials No additional materials N

SOURCE: Developer Interviews: Reading Program Costs and Services. aLicenses are valid in perpetuity.bDistricts typically use their own trainers after the first year. If insufficient capacity was built during the first year, however, districts can continue to pay for national trainecInstallation costs are a one-time fee. dThere is a premium technical support discount of 15 percent for 11 to 20 schools, 25 percent for 21 to 30 schools, 30 percent for 31 to 50 schools, 35 percent for 51 to 80 

more schools. 
44 

TABLE II.3 

ESTIMATED PROGRAM COSTS FOR TYPICAL SMALL, MEDIUM, AND LARGE DISTRICTS

District Size Project CRISS (in Dollars)a ReadAbout (in Dollars)b Read for Real (in Dollars)c 

Small (districts with < 2,500 students); assumptions: • One elementary school • Two fifth-grade teachers • 50 students and parents 

 0 Base cost  2,510 Initial training  800 Follow-up training  200 Additional support  1,100 Materials 

 4,610 Total 

 6,000 Base cost  0 Initial training  2,500 Follow-up training  5,300 Additional support  0 Materials 

 13,800 Total 

 952 Base cost  2,000 Initial training  0 Follow-up training  0 Additional support  0 Materials 

 2,952 Total 

Medium (districts with 2,500-9,999 students); assumptions: • Four elementary schools • 12 fifth-grade teachers • 300 students and parents 

 0 Base cost  3,060 Initial training  800 Follow-up training  600 Additional support  6,600 Materials 

 11,060 Total 

 19,500 Base cost  0 Initial training  2,500 Follow-up training  21,200 Additional support  0 Materials 

 43,200 Total 

 5,709 Base cost  2,000 Initial training  0 Follow-up training  0 Additional support  0 Materials 

 7,709 Total 

Large (districts with 

>10,000 

students); assumptions: • 17 elementary schools • 68 fifth-grade teachers • 1,700 students and parents 

 0 Base cost  8,540 Initial training  1,600 Follow-up training  3,400 Additional support  37,400 Materials 

 50,940 Total 

 97,500 Base cost  0 Initial training  6,720 Follow-up training  82,960 Additional support  0 Materials 

187,180 Total 

 32,351 Base cost  2,000 Initial training  0 Follow-up training  0 Additional support  0 Materials 

 34,351 Total 

aAssumptions: A national trainer is provided for three days of initial training and one day of follow-up training; one trainer would be used 

district; two trainers would be used for the large district; the trainers’ travel expenses would be in addition to the amounts shown. Thpurchased. 

bAssumptions: Licenses come in packets at $6,000 for 60 students, $9,500 for 100 students, and $19,500 for 360 students. The small district r

the medium district a set of 360 licenses, and the large district five sets of 360 licenses. The small and medium districts receive a 37 percentraining, and the large district (which requires three follow-up trainings to train the 68 teachers) receives a 44 percent discount. The large di

percent discount on premium technical support, since it has 17 schools. 

cAssumptions: One trainer would be used for the small and medium district; two trainers would be used for the large district; the trainers’ t

addition to the amounts shown. 
45 

 

B. TEACHER TRAINING AND SUPPORT 

The training that prepares teachers to implement a new curriculum can be an important 

determinant of how well they deliver it, and thus whether and how it affects student outcomes. In 

this evaluation, developers trained teachers in the treatment group schools. Understanding this 

training and the extent to which teachers participated in it can inform our interpretation of the 

interventions’ estimated impacts on student outcomes. This information also can contribute to 

our understanding of the observed differences in teacher practices between the treatment and 

control groups, since differences in practice could be expected to emerge only if a large 

percentage of teachers participated in the training (see Section D of this chapter for information 

on the comparison of treatment and control group teaching practices). 

Initial Teacher Training. Implementing the interventions involved a considerable amount 

of support and training for teachers (Table II.4). This training and support varied across the two 

years of the study and across interventions. In the first year of the study, across the four 

interventions, the developers’ training plans called for providing an average of 12 hours of initial 

training to prepare treatment group teachers to use the interventions. The initial training 

prescribed for the interventions ranged from 6 hours for ReadAbout to 18 hours for Project 

CRISS.33 

In the second year of the study, all developers’ training plans called for providing initial 

training to any teachers new to the study. The length of the training in the second year was the 

same as in the first year. In the second study year, two of the three developers’ training plans also 

called for providing refresher training to returning teachers (Table II.4). Scholastic’s training 

plans called for one day of refresher training for returning ReadAbout teachers. Project CRISS’s 

training plans called for returning teachers to participate in the same initial training provided to 

teachers new to the study. A new three-hour training—for a subset of returning teachers 

identified to assist other teachers with their CRISS implementation—was also called for in the 

second year. 

Follow-up Teacher Training During the School Year. In Year 1, all of the developers’ 

training plans called for follow-up training to help support teachers during the school year (Table 

II.4). Across the four interventions, an average of 7.5 hours of follow-up training were prescribed 

by the developers of the interventions to help support and further build upon teachers’ skills in 

the use of the interventions. Three programs (Project CRISS, Read for Real, and Reading for 

Knowledge) provided 6 hours of follow-up training, and ReadAbout provided 12 hours of 

follow-up training. 

In Year 2, two of the three developers’ training plans called for follow-up training (Table 

II.4). Six hours of follow-up training were prescribed for new and returning Project CRISS 

teachers. Twelve hours of follow-up training were prescribed for new ReadAbout teachers (no 

follow-up training was prescribed for returning ReadAbout teachers). Read for Real did not 

provide follow-up training in the second year. 

33Two-thirds of initial training sessions were held before the school year started. The timeline for the initial 

training in both study years is shown in Appendix D. 
46 

TABLE II.4 

SUMMARY OF TEACHER TRAINING 

Initial Training Follow-Up Training and Ongoing 

Support 

Project CRISS 18 hours of initial training, which 

includes 12 hours on using the 

strategies in the teacher’s guide and 6 

hours on using the student text and 

workbook. Teachers receive a 

training manual, teacher’s guide, 

student text, and a wraparound 

edition of the student workbook. In 

Year 2, 18 hours of initial training 

were prescribed for new and 

returning teachers. 

6 hours of follow-up training. Monthly 

trainer visits to each school to observe 

teachers and provide feedback. Developer 

encourages teachers to use biweekly 

study teams in which teachers review and 

discuss their use of CRISS strategies. In 

Year 2, 6 hours of follow-up training 

were prescribed for new and returning 

teachers. Year 2 training also included 3 

hours of training for building facilitators 

(CRISS leaders who assist other teachers 

with implementation). 

ReadAbout 6 hours of initial training covering 

program components (computer 

software, SmartFiles, Topic 

Planners), reading strategies, and test 

data interpretation. In Year 2, 6 hours 

of initial training were prescribed for 

new teachers. One day of refresher 

training was prescribed for returning 

teachers in Year 2. 

12 hours of follow-up training (6 hours in 

the fall and 6 hours in the spring) to 

provide more in-depth understanding of 

program components and strategies and to 

provide instruction in using student data 

to make instructional decisions. In Year 

2, 12 hours of follow-up training were 

prescribed for new teachers (no follow-up 

training was prescribed for returning 

teachers). 

Read for Real 12 hours of initial training on 

connecting to prior knowledge, 

active reading strategies, vocabulary, 

text analysis, graphic organizers, 

Know-Want to Know-Learned 

(KWL), and using writing to assess 

comprehension. In Year 2, 12 hours 

of initial training were prescribed for 

new teachers. Refresher training was 

not provided to returning teachers in 

Year 2. 

6 hours of follow-up training. Telephone 

support and online teacher support forum. 

Follow-up training was not provided in 

Year 2. 

Reading for Knowledgea 12 hours of initial training, which 

includes an overview of the four 

critical comprehension strategies, as 

well as instruction in cooperative 

learning and monitoring strategy use. 

6 hours of follow-up training. Developer 

encourages teachers to meet once per 

month to discuss program 

implementation. Each quarter, Success 

for All trainer attends teacher meetings, 

provides support and feedback (on-site 

and by phone), and observes reading and 

content area classes. 

a

Reading for Knowledge was not included in the fifth-grade component of the second year of the study. 
47 

Participation in Study Intervention Training. Over 90 percent of teachers participated in 

the initial training sessions provided by developers in Year 1 (Table II.5). A statistically 

significantly smaller percentage of teachers participated in the training sessions in Year 2 

(ranging from 50 percent for Read for Real up to 91 percent for ReadAbout). 

Compared to the other programs, a smaller percentage of Read for Real teachers participated 

in training in both study years. A statistically significantly lower percentage of Read for Real 

teachers (50 percent) participated in training relative to ReadAbout (91 percent) and Project 

CRISS (89 percent) (the p-values from tests comparing the percentage of teachers trained across 

treatment groups are not shown in the table). One potential explanation for this finding is that 

Read for Real developers did not provide make-up training for teachers who missed training 

sessions. 

TABLE II.5 

TEACHER TRAINING PARTICIPATION 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Year 1 

Percentage of Teachers Traineda 100.0 100.0 91.2 96.8 

Year 2 

Percentage of Teachers Traineda 88.8 91.4 49.5 n.a. 

Difference Between Year 2 and Year 1 

Percentage of Teachers Trained -11.2* -8.6* -41.7* n.a. 

(0.02) (0.02) (0.03) 

Number of Teachers, Year 1b 52 50 54 53 

Number of Teachers, Year 2b 49 46 8 n.a. 

SOURCE: Teacher training stipend claim forms. 

NOTE: The p-values from tests of differences in Year 1 and Year 2 means are presented in parentheses. These 

tests account for clustering of teachers within schools. 

a

Three developers (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Reading for Knowledge) provided nonstandard training for 

teachers who missed the original training sessions. The nonstandard training involved working with teachers 

individually to cover content they missed. 

b

The number of teachers shown in this row is the number of teachers participating in the study, except for Read for 

Real in Year 2. In Year 2, the only Read for Real Teachers who were to receive training were those who were new 

to the study in the second year, so that is the number reported. For the other interventions, training was to be 

provided to all teachers in Year 2 (including teachers new to the study and those returning to the study for a second 

year). 

n.a. = not applicable. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
48 

 

C. OBSERVED FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION 

Knowing the extent to which the interventions were implemented as intended is useful for 

interpreting impacts. Fidelity observations were conducted in spring of the 2006-2007 and 2007-

2008 school years to assess whether treatment group teachers were implementing the procedures 

of the intervention assigned to their school (see Chapter I for more information). Fidelity 

observations were conducted in all treatment classrooms in which the teachers reported using the 

interventions. 

 We did not observe the handful of teachers in each intervention condition (two to four 

teachers per intervention in the second year of the study) who reported not using the 

interventions.34 Fidelity observations were not conducted for these teachers because the goal of 

the fidelity analysis was to measure teachers’ adherence to the specific set of procedures deemed 

important by developers for implementing each intervention model. Therefore, teachers who 

reported not implementing the interventions would not be adhering to the curriculum model if 

they happened to implement practices suggested by the curriculum model. (Data are not 

available to assess whether these teachers unintentionally implemented practices suggested by 

the curricula models.) 

 When analyzing the fidelity observation data, we assumed that these teachers did not 

implement any of the procedures listed on their assigned treatment group’s fidelity form. This 

procedure was followed to ensure that the fidelity data reflect the full sample of teachers 

assigned to each intervention. 

 In the text that follows, we discuss the following key implementation findings: 

• In the spring of the second year of the study, over 80 percent (83 to 96 percent) 

of treatment teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. Eighty-three 

percent of Read for Real teachers, 92 percent of Project CRISS teachers, and 

96 percent of ReadAbout teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. The 

percentage of teachers who reported using each of the three interventions did not 

differ significantly between the first and second years of the study. 

• Classroom observation data from the second year of intervention 

implementation showed that teachers implemented 65 to 94 percent of the 

practices deemed important by the developers for implementing each 

curriculum. On average, Project CRISS teachers implemented 65 percent of such 

practices and ReadAbout teachers implemented 94 percent of such practices. Read for 

Real teachers implemented 75 and 76 percent of such practices for the two types of 

instructional formats that comprise the program. There were no statistically 

34The more general observations of teaching practices relating to vocabulary and comprehension instruction 

were conducted for these teachers. 
49 

 

significant differences in average fidelity levels between the first and second study 

years.35

• Teachers who participated in both study years were more likely to report using 

their assigned curriculum than teachers new to the study in the second year. 

These differences were statistically significant for ReadAbout (100 percent vs. 

82 percent, p-value = .013) and Project CRISS (100 percent vs. 76 percent, p-value = 

.005), but not for Read for Real (90 percent vs. 80 percent). 

• Project CRISS teachers who participated in both study years were observed 

implementing statistically significantly more practices than Project CRISS 

teachers new to the study in the second year. Project CRISS teachers who 

participated in both years were observed implementing 72 percent of the practices 

deemed important by developers, while teachers new to the study in Year 2 were 

observed implementing 51 percent of the practices (p-value = 0.008). 

Below, we present information on the extent to which treatment group teachers were 

observed implementing the procedures of the study intervention on the day they were observed. 

We present this information separately for each intervention because each intervention had a set 

of intervention-specific practices that the developer deemed important for implementation. For 

each intervention, we present fidelity rates from the second year of intervention implementation. 

We then describe whether those rates differed significantly from those observed in the first year. 

In addition, we examine whether fidelity rates are higher for teachers who were in the study both 

years relative to teachers new to the study in the second year. 

 We report fidelity rates for each intervention in two ways: (1) the percentage of fidelity form 

items observed—restricted to items that fell within a section for which teachers were observed 

and (2) the percentage of all fidelity form items observed. We report findings both ways because 

it is not possible to determine the reason why items in a particular section were not observed. For 

example, if a behavior was not observed, we do not know if this was because the teacher should 

not have been implementing that behavior on that day or because the teacher forgot, or 

intentionally decided not, to implement it. However, with two of the interventions (Read for Real 

and ReadAbout), the calculations that are restricted to fidelity form items that fell within a 

section for which teachers were observed may be particularly relevant. According to the 

developer, Read for Real lessons follow a progression in which teachers must complete a given 

lesson before moving on to the next lesson. In some cases, teachers may not have had time to 

finish a lesson before the school day ended, therefore some sections would not have been 

observed by the study team’s classroom observers. This does not necessarily mean the teacher 

implemented the curriculum poorly, as the program is designed to have teachers begin their 

lessons on the next day based on where they finished on the prior day. By presenting the 

percentage of items observed—restricted to items that fell within a section for which teachers 

35The fidelity levels reported in this bullet for ReadAbout and Read for Real are based on fidelity form 

practices that fell within a window observed by the study’s classroom observers. The fidelity levels reported for 

Project CRISS are based on all practices on the Project CRISS fidelity form because developers expected teachers to 

implement all fidelity form practices during each lesson. 
50 

were observed—the fidelity ratings may be more likely to be based on the sections of the lesson 

the teacher was completing that day. For example, if a teacher was working on the part of the 

lesson that involved discussing text after students read it, we would not expect to observe 

teachers engaging in before-reading activities such as activating prior knowledge. 

 The fidelity calculations based on the restricted set of items that fall within observed sections 

of the ReadAbout fidelity protocol are also relevant, but for a different reason. According to the 

developer, every ReadAbout lesson does not need to include all teaching practices shown on the 

fidelity form. In fact, some lessons might include two practices, while other lessons might 

include more. Therefore, presenting the percentage of items observed—restricted to items that 

fell within the sections for which teachers were observed—aims to focus the fidelity analysis on 

only those teaching practices being implemented that day. 

 The fidelity calculations based on the restricted set of items that fall within observed sections 

of the fidelity protocol are not necessarily relevant for Project CRISS. According to the 

developer, teachers using Project CRISS should complete all teaching practices during every 

lesson. Therefore, the most relevant analysis of the Project CRISS fidelity data is based on the 

percentage of all fidelity form items observed. If an item was not observed, it is likely that the 

teacher failed to exhibit that item when he or she should have done so. 

We also report fidelity rates for each intervention for teachers who participated in both years 

of the study and for teachers who were new to the study in the second year. We conducted tests 

comparing fidelity rates for teachers who participated in both years of the study and teachers 

who were new to the study in the second year to examine how differences in experience 

implementing the study curricula are related to the quality of implementation. 

1. Project CRISS 

As noted above, according to the developer, each Project CRISS lesson should include all 

items that appear on the fidelity protocol. Therefore, in the text that follows, we focus on fidelity 

rates based on all fidelity form items (column 3 in Table II.6 and column 2 in Table II.7). 

 Project CRISS teachers were observed engaging in 65 percent of the key Project CRISS 

teaching practices in Year 2 (Table II.7). This percentage did not differ significantly from the 

63 percent of teaching practices observed in Year 1 (Table II.8). In Year 2, Project CRISS 

teachers engaged most frequently in asking students to read a written text (92 percent), leading 

students in transforming information activities (86 percent), including informal or formal writing 

in transforming information activities (80 percent), and using transforming activities to teach the 

content of the lesson (76 percent) (Table II.6). 

There were no statistically significant differences in the extent to which Project CRISS 

teachers engaged in individual key teaching practices between the first and second years of 

implementation (Table II.8). 
51

TABLE II.6 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING PRACTICES FOR THE PROJECT CRISS 

CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

(1) 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Sectiona

(2) 

Among Teachers 

Implementing 

Section, Percentage 

of Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(3) 

Among All 

Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora

Section I. Preparing for Understanding

Provide instruction or lead activities to generate 

background knowledge about a topic or concept 

before students read about it 71.34 94.29 67.35 

Help students set goals and determine a purpose 

before beginning to read 90.91 61.22 

Section II. Engaging Students with Content and Transforming Information

Have students read a written text 100.00 91.84 

Lead students during and/or after reading in 

transforming information activities (for 

example, graphic organizer, guided discussion) 93.33 85.71 

Include informal or formal writing in the 

transforming activities (including note taking) 91.84 92.86 79.59 

Use the transforming activities to teach the 

content of the lesson 94.87 75.51 

Discuss or reflect on students’ metacognitive 

processes during the transforming activities 56.76 42.86 

Section III. Reflecting on Content and Learning Processes

Lead the whole class in a reflection discussion at 

the end of the lesson using questions such as: 16.33 100.00 16.33 

(A) Metacognition: How did you evaluate your 

comprehension? 

(B) Background knowledge: Did I assist you in 

thinking about what you already knew? 

(C) Purpose setting: Did you have clear 

purposes? 

(D) Active involvement: How were you 

actively engaged? 

(E) Discussion: How did discussion clarify 

your thinking? 

(F) Writing: How did you use writing to help 

you learn? 

(G) Transformation: What were the different 

ways you transformed information? How 

did this help you? 

(H) Teacher modeling: Did I do enough 

modeling? 

Sample Sizeb 53 
Table II.6 (continued) 

 

52 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: There are two possible explanations for why teachers were not observed implementing a section of 

behaviors from the fidelity form: (1) a section might not have been appropriate given the stage of the 

lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, but the teacher failed to exhibit them. 

Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason the behaviors in that section 

were not observed, we report fidelity rates under both assumptions. The findings in the second column 

can be viewed as an “upper bound” on fidelity (corresponding to the first explanation), while the 

findings in the third column can be viewed as a “lower bound” (corresponding to the second 

explanation). 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 
53 

TABLE II.7 

OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

(1) 

Restricted to 

Behaviors in 

Observed Sections

(2) 

All Behaviorsa

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing: 

80 to 100 percent of the CRISS fidelity form behaviors 71.11 30.61 

40 to 79 percent of the CRISS fidelity form behaviors 28.89 61.22 

0 to 39 percent of the CRISS fidelity form behaviors 0.00 8.16 

Mean Percentage of the CRISS Fidelity Form Behaviors That 

Teachers Were Observed Implementing 83.71 65.05 

Sample Size b 53 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: There are two possible explanations for why teachers were not observed implementing a section of 

behaviors from the fidelity form: (1) a section might not have been appropriate given the stage of the 

lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, but the teacher failed to exhibit them. 

Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason the behaviors in that section 

were not observed, we report overall fidelity rates under both assumptions. The findings in the first 

column can be viewed as an “upper bound” on overall fidelity (corresponding to the first explanation), 

while the findings in the second column can be viewed as a “lower bound” (corresponding to the 

second explanation). 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 
54

TABLE II.8 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS CURRICULUM IN YEARS 1 AND 2 

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using Project CRISS 94.23 94.09 0.14 .979 

Section I. Preparing for Understanding

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provide instruction or lead activities to generate background 

knowledge about a topic or concept before students read about 

it 67.31 68.00 0.69 .941 

Help students set goals and determine a purpose before 

beginning to read 63.46 60.72 -2.74 .779 

Section II. Engaging Students with Content and Transforming Information

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Have students read a written text 84.62 95.00 10.38 .139 

Lead students during and/or after reading in transforming 

information activities (for example, graphic organizer, guided 

discussion) 82.69 87.53 4.84 .541 

Include informal or formal writing in the transforming activities 

(including notetaking) 76.92 82.29 5.37 .536 

Use the transforming activities to teach the content of the lesson 76.92 76.17 -0.75 .931 

Discuss or reflect on students’ metacognitive processes during 

the transforming activities 46.15 44.60 -1.55 .883 

Section III. Reflecting on Content and Learning Processes

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Lead the whole class in a reflection discussion at the end of the 

lesson using questions such as: —b —b —b —b

(A) Metacognition: How did you evaluate your comprehension? 

(B) Background knowledge: Did I assist you in thinking about 

what you already knew? 

(C) Purpose setting: Did you have clear purposes? 

(D) Active involvement: How were you actively engaged? 

(E) Discussion: How did discussion clarify your thinking? 

(F) Writing: How did you use writing to help you learn? 

(G) Transformation: What were the different ways you 

transformed information? How did this help you? 

(H) Teacher modeling: Did I do enough modeling? 

Overall Fidelity

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing:a

80 to 100 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 23.08 29.04 5.96 .398 

40 to 79 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 57.69 53.62 -4.07 .506 

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 19.23 17.34 -1.89 .913 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form Behaviors Listed Above 

That Teachers Were Observed Implementing 62.50 64.74 2.24 .617 

Sample Sizec 54 53 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 
Table II.8 (continued) 

 

55 

NOTE: The reported differences are regression adjusted to account for school effects. The Year 1 mean is the raw 

mean, the Year 2 mean is the Year 1 mean plus the regression-adjusted difference between years. Note that 

this explains the difference from the raw Year 2 means reported in Table II.7. 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in 

this table are based on all behaviors in all sections of the fidelity form, not only on the behaviors in the observed sections.

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality.

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 
56 

Project CRISS teachers who participated in both years of the study were statistically 

significantly more likely to report using Project CRISS than teachers who were new to the study 

in the second year (Table II.9, 100 percent vs. 76 percent, p-value = .005). Teachers who 

participated in both years of the study were observed implementing a statistically significantly 

higher mean percentage of practices advocated by the developer than teachers who were new to 

the study in the second year (72 percent vs. 51 percent, p-value = .008). Four statistically 

significant differences between teachers new to the study in the second year and teachers who 

participated in both years of the study were observed on individual teaching practices. 

Statistically significantly more teachers who participated in both years of the study than teachers 

new to the study in the second year were observed implementing the following practices: 

(1) having students read a written text (100 percent vs. 76 percent, p-value = .005), (2) leading 

students during or after reading in a transforming information activity (97 percent vs. 65 percent, 

p-value = .002), (3) using the transforming activities to teach the content of the lesson 

(87 percent vs. 59 percent, p-value = .030), and (4) discussing or reflecting on students’ 

metacognitive processes during the transforming activities (53 percent vs. 24 percent, p-value = 

.048). There were no statistically significant differences among teachers who participated in both 

years of the study and teachers who were new to the study in the second year on the remaining 

items (which addressed teaching practices related to before- and after-reading activities). 

2. Read for Real 

As mentioned above, each Read for Real lesson follows a specified progression that must be 

completed before a new lesson can begin, and lessons may span two days. Therefore, in this 

section we focus primarily on the percentage of items observed restricting to items that fall 

within sections for which teachers were observed (columns 2 and 5 of Table II.10 and column 1 

in Table 11). 

 

The Read for Real intervention involved two types of instructional days, both of which were 

observed for the study. On Read for Real “Learn” days (days on which teachers modeled the 

comprehension strategies for students), Read for Real teachers were assessed based on 25 items. 

On Read for Real “Practice” days (days on which the teachers worked with students as they 

practiced the comprehension strategies), Read for Real teachers were assessed based on a similar 

protocol with 17 items (See Tables II.10, II.12, and II.13 for a list of the items included in the 

“Learn” and “Practice” day protocols). 

Learn Days. On the “Learn” days in the second year of the study, restricting to items in 

sections for which teachers were observed, Read for Real teachers were observed engaging in 

75 percent of the teaching practices deemed important by developers for implementing Read for 

Real (Table II.11). Restricting to items in sections for which teachers were observed, 100 percent 

of teachers were observed implementing three practices: (1) discussing the comprehension 

strategy with students, (2) reading or asking students to read the explanation of the “During 

Reading” strategy, and (3) reading or asking students to read about organizing information 

(Table II.10). 
57

TABLE II.9 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE PROJECT CRISS CURRICULUM, 

BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM 

Teachers in 

Year 2 Only 

Teachers in 

Both Years Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using 

Project CRISS 76.47 100.00 23.53 .005* 

Section I. Preparing for Understanding

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provide instruction or lead activities to generate 

background knowledge about a topic or 

concept before students read about it 52.94 73.33 20.39 .163 

Help students set goals and determine a purpose 

before beginning to read 52.94 63.33 10.39 .496 

Section II. Engaging Students with Content and Transforming Information

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Have students read a written text 76.47 100.00 23.53 .005* 

Lead students during and/or after reading in 

transforming information activities (for 

example, graphic organizer, guided 

discussion) 64.71 96.67 31.96 .002* 

Include informal or formal writing in the 

transforming activities (including notetaking) 64.71 86.67 21.96 .080 

Use the transforming activities to teach the 

content of the lesson 58.82 86.67 27.85 .030* 

Discuss or reflect on students’ metacognitive 

processes during the transforming activities 23.53 53.33 29.80 .048* 

Section III. Reflecting on Content and Learning Processes

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Lead the whole class in a reflection discussion at 

the end of the lesson using questions such as: —b —b —b —b

(A) Metacognition: How did you evaluate your 

comprehension? 

(B) Background knowledge: Did I assist you in 

thinking about what you already knew? 

(C) Purpose setting: Did you have clear 

purposes? 

(D) Active involvement: How were you 

actively engaged? 

(E) Discussion: How did discussion clarify 

your thinking? 

(F) Writing: How did you use writing to help 

you learn? 

(G) Transformation: What were the different 

ways you transformed information? How 

did this help you? 

(H) Teacher modeling: Did I do enough 

modeling? 
Table II.9 (continued) 

58 

Teachers in 

Year 2 Only 

Teachers in 

Both Years Difference p-value 

Overall Fidelity

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed 

Implementing:a

80 to 100 percent of the fidelity form behaviors 

listed above 23.53 33.33 9.80 .491 

40 to 79 percent of the fidelity form behaviors 

listed above 41.18 56.67 15.49 .318 

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form behaviors 

listed above 35.29 10.00 25.29 .035* 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form Behaviors 

Listed Above That Teachers Were Observed 

Implementing 50.74 72.08 21.34 .008* 

Sample Size 18 35 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: These differences are not regression adjusted. 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in 

this table are based on all behaviors in all sections of the fidelity form, not only on the behaviors in the observed sections.

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
59

TABLE II.10 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING PRACTICES FOR THE READ FOR REAL 

CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

(1) 

Perce

ntage of 

Teachers 

for Whom 

Behavior is 

Included in 

Observation 

Windowa

(2) 

Among 

Teachers for 

Whom 

Behavior 

Falls in 

Observation 

Window, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(3) 

Among 

All Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora 

(4) 

Perce

ntage of 

Teachers 

for Whom 

Behavior Is 

Included in 

Observation 

Windowa

(5) 

Among 

Teachers for 

Whom 

Behavior 

Falls in 

Observation 

Window, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(6) 

Among 

All Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora

Before Reading

Reads or asks a student to read the 

explanation of the Before 

Reading focus strategy 75.00 91.67 61.11 42.86 83.33 35.71 

Discusses the strategy with 

students 75.00 100.00 66.67 42.86 83.33 35.71 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking 

box 75.00 66.67 44.44 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to apply the 

strategy 68.75 70.00 38.89 50.00 85.71 42.86 

Discusses students’ comments n.a. n.a. n.a. 57.14 75.00 42.86 

During Reading

Reads or asks a student to read the 

explanation of the During 

Reading focus strategy 81.25 100.00 72.22 57.14 87.50 50.00 

Discusses the strategy with the 

students 81.25 76.92 55.56 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking 

box (notes from the reading 

partner) 81.25 84.62 61.11 57.14 75.00 42.86 

Asks students to share their 

thinking about the strategy 81.25 61.54 44.44 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reminds students to write notes 

about the strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. 64.29 88.89 57.14 

Stops and addresses the My 

Thinking notes at the “red 

strategy buttons” 81.25 76.92 55.56 64.29 77.78 50.00 

Reads and/or asks students to read 

the selection 56.25 81.82 68.75 64.29 100.00 64.29 

After Reading

Reads or asks a student to read the 

After Reading focus strategy 37.50 83.33 27.78 50.00 57.14 28.57 

Discusses or asks questions about 

the strategy 37.50 83.33 27.78 42.86 50.00 21.43 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking 

box 37.50 83.33 27.78 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Gives a written assignment 

highlighting the After Reading 

focus strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. 42.86 50.00 21.43 

Calls on students to implement the 

After Reading focus strategy 37.50 83.33 27.78 n.a. n.a. n.a. 
Table II.10 (continued) 

60 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

(1) 

Perce

ntage of 

Teachers 

for Whom 

Behavior is 

Included in 

Observation 

Windowa

(2) 

Among 

Teachers for 

Whom 

Behavior 

Falls in 

Observation 

Window, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(3) 

Among 

All Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora 

(4) 

Perce

ntage of 

Teachers 

for Whom 

Behavior Is 

Included in 

Observation 

Windowa

(5) 

Among 

Teachers for 

Whom 

Behavior 

Falls in 

Observation 

Window, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(6) 

Among 

All Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora

Comprehension

Administers the open book 

comprehension test 18.75 —b —b 35.71 —b —b

Corrects tests with the class 18.75 —b —b 28.57 0.00 0.00 

Discusses responses 18.75 —b —b 28.57 0.00 0.00 

Organizing Information

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information from the reading 

partner 18.75 100.00 16.67 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the graphic organizer —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to complete the 

graphic organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. 35.71 80.00 28.57 

Writing for Comprehension

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information from the reading 

partner —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

summary —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to write a summary 

based on their completed 

graphic organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b

Identifies how the paragraphs and 

sentences in the summary 

correspond to the information 

on the graphic organizer —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the three parts of a 

summary —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Introduction —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Body —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Conclusion —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Sample Sizec 31 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: Teachers could have started the lesson at any item/behavior (“start” item) in any section of the fidelity form and ended 

the lesson at any item/behavior (“end” item) in a subsequent section of the fidelity form. The window of observation 

consists of all the items in the interval from the “start” to the “end” item. There are two possible explanations for why 

teachers were not observed implementing behaviors outside their observation window: (1) behaviors outside of that 

window might not have been appropriate given the stage of the lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, 

but the teacher failed to exhibit them. Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason behaviors 

outside the window were not observed, we report fidelity rates under both assumptions. The findings in the second and 

fifth columns can be viewed as an “upper bound” on fidelity (corresponding to the first explanation), while the findings 

in the third and sixth columns can be viewed as a “lower bound” (corresponding to the second explanation). 
Table II.10 (continued) 

61 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers (observed and not 

observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula did not 

engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. Roughly half the teachers were observed on 

“Learn” days, and roughly half were observed on “Practice” days. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
62 

TABLE II.11 

OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

(1) 

Restricted to Behaviors 

in Observation Windows 

(2) 

All Behaviorsa

Learn Observation Days 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed 

Implementing:b

80 to 100 percent of the Read for Real fidelity form 

behaviors 50.00 0.00 

0 to 79 percent of the Read for Real fidelity form 

behaviorsc 50.00 100.00 

Mean Percentage of the Read for Real Fidelity Form 

Behaviors That Teachers Were Observed Implementing 74.78 36.68 

Practice Observation Days 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed 

Implementing:b

40 to 100 percent of the Read for Real fidelity form 

behaviorsd 81.52 42.86 

0 to 39 percent of the Read for Real fidelity form 

behaviors 18.18 57.14 

Mean Percentage of the Read for Real Fidelity Form 

Behaviors That Teachers Were Observed Implementing 76.02 33.61 

Sample Sizee 31 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: Teachers could have started the lesson at any item/behavior (“start” item) in any section of the fidelity 

form and ended the lesson at any item/behavior (“end” item) in a subsequent section of the fidelity 

form. The window of observation consists of all the items in the interval from the “start” to the “end” 

item. There are two possible explanations for why teachers were not observed implementing behaviors 

outside their observation window: (1) behaviors outside of that window might not have been 

appropriate given the stage of the lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, but the 

teacher failed to exhibit them. Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason 

behaviors outside the window were not observed, we report overall fidelity rates under both 

assumptions. The findings in the first column can be viewed as an “upper bound” on fidelity 

(corresponding to the first explanation), while the findings in the second column can be viewed as a 

“lower bound” (corresponding to the second explanation). 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

The vocabulary and fluency items have been left out of the table because developers noted they were not essential 

for implementation of the Read for Real intervention. 

c

The 0 to 39 percent and 40 to 79 percent categories were combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

d

The 40 to 79 percent and 80 to 100 percent categories were combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

e

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. Roughly half the teachers 

were observed on “Learn” days, and roughly half were observed on “Practice” days. 
63

TABLE II.12 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL CURRICULUM IN YEARS 1 AND 2 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using Read 

for Real 86.79 83.33 -3.46 .703 86.79 83.33 -3.46 .703 

Before Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the explanation 

of the Before Reading focus strategy 55.00 68.75 13.75 .415 54.55 35.71 -18.84 .247 

Discusses the strategy with students 45.00 75.00 30.00 .073 54.55 35.71 -18.84 .247 

Reads or asks a student to read the information 

in the My Thinking box 55.00 50.00 -5.00 .773 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to apply the strategy 45.00 43.75 -1.25 .942 57.58 42.86 -14.72 .366 

Discusses students’ comments n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 48.48 42.86 -5.62 .731 

During Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the explanation 

of the During Reading focus strategy 60.00 81.25 21.25 .179 48.48 50.00 1.52 .926 

Discusses the strategy with the students 65.00 62.50 -2.50 .881 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the information 

in the My Thinking box (notes from the 

reading partner) 60.00 68.75 8.75 .600 42.42 42.86 0.44 .979 

Asks students to share their thinking about the 

strategy 60.00 50.00 -10.00 .562 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reminds students to write notes about the 

strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 36.36 57.14 20.78 .196 

Stops and addresses the My Thinking notes at 

the “red strategy buttons” 65.00 62.50 -2.50 .881 69.70 50.00 -19.70 .207 

Reads and/or asks students to read the selection 70.00 56.25 -13.75 .408 69.70 64.29 -5.41 .723 

After Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the After 

Reading focus strategy 35.00 31.25 -3.75 .819 24.24 28.57 4.33 .762 

Discusses or asks questions about the strategy 25.00 31.25 6.25 .688 21.21 21.43 0.22 .987 

Reads or asks a student to read the information 

in the My Thinking box 20.00 31.25 11.25 .453 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Gives a written assignment highlighting the 

After Reading focus strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 15.15 21.43 6.28 .610 

Calls on students to implement the After 

Reading focus strategy 15.00 31.25 16.25 .256 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Comprehension 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Administers the open book comprehension test —b —b —b —b 9.09 7.14 -1.95 .831 

Corrects tests with the class —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

Discusses responses —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

Organizing Information 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the information 

from the reading partner 20.00 18.75 -1.25 .928 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the graphic organizer —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to complete the graphic organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12.12 28.57 16.45 .177 
Table II.12 (continued) 

64 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value 

Writing for Comprehension 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to 

Have Done the Following During the Time When 

Their Classes Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the information 

from the reading partner —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the summary —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to write a summary based on 

their completed graphic organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

Identifies how the paragraphs and sentences in 

the summary correspond to the information 

on the graphic organizer —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the three parts of a summary 

Introduction —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Body —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Conclusion —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Overall Fidelity 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed 

Implementing:c

40 to 100 percent of the fidelity form behaviors 

listed aboved 50.00 37.50 –12.50 .468 48.48 42.86 -5.62 .731 

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form behaviors 

listed above 50.00 62.50 12.50 .468 51.52 57.14 5.62 .731 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form Behaviors 

Listed Above that Teachers Were Observed 

Implementing 34.60 34.25 -0.35 .962 34.05 31.51 -2.54 .748 

Sample Sizee 57 (Year 1), 31 (Year 2) 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: The reported differences are regression adjusted to account for school effects. The Year 1 mean is the raw mean, the Year 2 

mean is the Year 1 mean plus the regression-adjusted difference between years. Note that this explains the difference from the 

raw Year 2 means reported in Table II.11.

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers (observed and not observed 

for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula did not engage in the 

behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in this table are based on all behaviors on the fidelity form, not only on the 

behaviors in the observed windows. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The vocabulary and fluency items have been left out of the table because developers noted they were not essential for implementation of the 

Read for Real intervention. 

d

The 40 to 79 percent and the 80 to 100 percent categories have been combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

e

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. Roughly half the teachers were observed on “Learn” days, 

and roughly half were observed on “Practice” days. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
65

TABLE II.13 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READ FOR REAL CURRICULUM, 

BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

Teachers 

in Year 

2 Only 

Teachers 

in Both 

Years Difference p-value 

Teachers 

in Year 

2 Only 

Teachers 

in Both 

Years Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported 

Using Read for Real 80.00 90.00 10.00 .505 80.00 90.00 10.00 .505 

Before Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the 

explanation of the Before Reading 

focus strategy 77.78 57.14 -20.64 .411 —b —b —b —b

Discusses the strategy with students 77.78 71.43 -6.35 .789 —b —b —b —b

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking box 66.67 28.57 -38.10 .149 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to apply the strategy —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

Discusses students’ comments n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

During Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the 

explanation of the During Reading 

focus strategy 77.78 85.71 7.93 .710 —b —b —b —b

Discusses the strategy with the 

students 66.67 57.14 -9.53 .719 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking box 

(notes from the reading partner) 77.78 57.14 -20.64 .411 —b —b —b —b

Asks students to share their thinking 

about the strategy 55.56 42.86 -12.70 .642 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reminds students to write notes about 

the strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

Stops and addresses the My Thinking 

notes at the “red strategy buttons” 66.67 57.14 -9.53 .719 —b —b —b —b

Reads and/or asks students to read the 

selection 66.67 42.86 -23.81 .171 —b —b —b —b

After Reading 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the 

After Reading focus strategy —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

Discusses or asks questions about the 

strategy —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information in the My Thinking box —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Gives a written assignment 

highlighting the After Reading 

focus strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

Calls on students to implement the 

After Reading focus strategy —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 
Table II.13 (continued) 

66 

Learn Observation Days Practice Observation Days 

Teachers 

in Year 

2 Only 

Teachers 

in Both 

Years Difference p-value 

Teachers 

in Year 

2 Only 

Teachers 

in Both 

Years Difference p-value 

Comprehension 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Administers the open book 

comprehension test 0.00 28.57 28.57 .098 —b —b —b —b

Corrects tests with the class 0.00 28.57 28.57 .098 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a. 

Discusses responses 0.00 28.57 28.57 .098 0.00 0.00 n.a. n.a. 

Organizing Information 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information from the reading 

partner —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the graphic organizer —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to complete the graphic 

organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

Writing for Comprehension 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes 

Were Observed:a

Reads or asks a student to read the 

information from the reading 

partner 0.00 14.29 14.29 .271 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Reads or asks a student to read the 

summary —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to write a summary 

based on their completed graphic 

organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —b —b —b —b

Identifies how the paragraphs and 

sentences in the summary 

correspond to the information on the 

graphic organizer —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Discusses the three parts of a summary 

Introduction —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Body —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Conclusion —b —b —b —b n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Overall Fidelity 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were 

Observed Implementing:c

80 to 100 percent of the fidelity form 

behaviors listed above —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

40 to 79 percent of the fidelity form 

behaviors listed above —b —b —b —b —b —b —b —b

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form 

behaviors listed above 55.56 71.43 15.87 .547 63.64 33.33 -30.31 .386 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form 

Behaviors Listed Above That Teachers 

Were Observed Implementing 35.11 33.14 -1.97 .868 29.41 39.22 9.81 .570 

Sample Size 9 (Year 2 Only), 22 (Both Years) 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 
Table II.13 (continued) 

67 

NOTE: These differences are not regression adjusted. P-values could not be obtained when few teachers were observed adhering to a 

specific behavior. This is indicated by a (.). 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers (observed and not observed 

for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula did not engage in the 

behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in this table are based on all behaviors on the fidelity form, not only on the 

behaviors in the observed windows. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The vocabulary and fluency items have been left out of the table because developers noted they were not essential for implementation of the 

Read for Real intervention. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
68 

Focusing on all fidelity form items, there were no statistically significant differences in 

implementation fidelity for the “Learn” day items between Years 1 and 2 (Table II.12). There 

were also no statistically significant differences in implementation fidelity for the “Learn” day 

items between teachers who participated in both years of the study and teachers who were new to 

the study in the second year (Table II.13). 

 

Practice Days. On the Read for Real “Practice” days in Year 2, restricting to items in 

sections for which teachers were observed, teachers were observed engaging in 76 percent of the 

practices deemed important by developers for implementing the intervention (Table II.11). The 

highest rates of implementation in the second year were observed for teachers reading or asking 

students to read a selection, for teachers reminding students to write notes about the strategy, and 

for teachers reading or asking students to read the explanation of the During Reading strategy 

(100 percent, 89 percent, and 88 percent, respectively, among teachers for whom the “During 

Reading” section was observed) (Table II.10). 

Focusing on all fidelity form items, there were no statistically significant differences in 

implementation fidelity for the “Practice” day items between Years 1 and 2 (Table II.12). There 

were also no statistically significant differences in implementation fidelity for the “Practice” day 

items between teachers who participated in both years of the study and teachers who were new to 

the study in the second year (Table II.13). 

3. ReadAbout 

As mentioned above, ReadAbout’s developer (Scholastic) did not prescribe that teachers 

implement all nine teaching practices on the ReadAbout fidelity form during every lesson. In 

particular, teachers were told that they could conduct small group instruction in comprehension, 

vocabulary, or writing, but not necessarily all three in a single lesson. Therefore, the text below 

focuses primarily on the percentage of items observed restricting to items in sections for which 

teachers were observed (column 2 in Table II.14 and column 1 in Table II.15). 

Restricting to items in sections for which teachers were observed in Year 2, ReadAbout 

teachers were observed engaging in 94 percent of the teaching practices considered important to 

the implementation of ReadAbout (Table II.15). The highest rates of implementation in the 

second year were observed for teachers providing direct instruction on comprehension or 

vocabulary skills (86 and 91 percent, respectively) and providing students with opportunities to 

apply comprehension or vocabulary skills (94 and 91 percent, respectively) (Table II.14). 

Focusing on all fidelity form items, there were no statistically significant differences in 

implementation fidelity between the first and second years of the study (Table II.16). Teachers 

who participated in both years of the study were statistically significantly more likely to report 

using ReadAbout than teachers who were new to the study in the second year (Table II.17, 

100 percent vs. 82 percent, p-value = .013). Teachers who participated in both years of the study 

were also statistically significantly more likely than teachers who were new to the study in the 

second year to be observed using the ReadAbout materials (100 percent vs. 82 percent, p-value = 

.013). 
69 

TABLE II.14 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHING PRACTICES FOR THE READABOUT 

CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

(1) 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Sectiona

(2) 

Among Teachers 

Implementing 

Section, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behavior 

(3) 

Among All 

Teachers, 

Percentage of 

Teachers 

Observed 

Implementing 

Behaviora

Part I, Section I. Comprehension

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) 

on the strategy or skill 77.78 85.71 66.67 

Provided opportunities for students to apply the skill 

(guided practice) 94.29 73.33 

Part I, Section II. Vocabulary

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) 

on the strategy or skill 24.44 90.91 22.22 

Provided opportunities for students to apply the skill 

(guided practice) 90.91 22.22 

Part I, Section III. Writing

Provided students instruction on the selected 6+1 

Writing Trait 11.11 40.00 —b

Provided opportunities to apply the 6+1 Writing Trait 

Model 40.00 —b

Part II. Use of Workstations and ReadAbout Materials

Used the ReadAbout materials 

n.a. 

n.a. 95.56 

Computer workstation used n.a. 68.89 

Independent workstation used n.a. 55.56 

Sample Sizec 46 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: There are two possible explanations for why teachers were not observed implementing a section of 

behaviors from the fidelity form: (1) a section might not have been appropriate given the stage of the 

lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, but the teacher failed to exhibit them. 

Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason the behaviors in that section 

were not observed, we report fidelity rates under both assumptions. The findings in the second column 

can be viewed as an “upper bound” on fidelity (corresponding to the first explanation), while the 

findings in the third column can be viewed as a “lower bound” (corresponding to the second 

explanation). 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
70 

TABLE II.15 

OVERALL FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT CURRICULUM IN YEAR 2 

Restricted to Behaviors in Observed Sections 

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing: 

80 to 100 percent of the ReadAbout fidelity form behaviors 86.05 

0 to 79 percent of the ReadAbout fidelity form behaviorsa 13.95 

Mean Percentage of the ReadAbout Fidelity Form Behaviors That Teachers Were Observed 

Implementing 94.01 

All Behaviorsb

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing: 

40 to 100 percent of the ReadAbout fidelity form behaviorsc 73.33 

0 to 39 percent of the ReadAbout fidelity form behaviors 26.67 

Mean Percentage of the ReadAbout Fidelity Form Behaviors That Teachers Were Observed 

Implementing 45.93 

Sample Sizec 

46 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: There are two possible explanations for why teachers were not observed implementing a section of 

behaviors from the fidelity form: (1) a section might not have been appropriate given the stage of the 

lesson; or (2) the behaviors might have been appropriate, but the teacher failed to exhibit them. 

Because it is not possible to determine which explanation is the reason the behaviors in that section 

were not observed, we report overall fidelity rates under both assumptions. The findings in the first 

column can be viewed as an “upper bound” on overall fidelity (corresponding to the first explanation), 

while the findings in the second column can be viewed as a “lower bound” (corresponding to the 

second explanation). 

a

The 0 to 39 percent and 40 to 79 percent categories were combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

b

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

(observed and not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not 

implementing the curricula did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

c

The 40 to 79 percent and 80 to 100 percent categories were combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

d

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 
71 

TABLE II.16 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT CURRICULUM IN YEARS 1 AND 2 

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using ReadAbout 100.00 95.71 -4.29 .189 

Part I, Section I. Comprehension

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) on the strategy or 

skill 69.57 68.92 -0.65 .946 

Provided opportunities for students to apply the skill (guided practice) 69.57 75.23 5.66 .556 

Part I, Section II. Vocabulary

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) on the strategy or 

skill 15.22 24.62 9.40 .283 

Provided opportunities for students to apply skill (guided practice) 19.57 20.88 1.31 .875 

Part I, Section III. Writing

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided students instruction on the selected 6+1 Writing Trait —b —b —b —b

Provided opportunities to apply the 6+1 Writing Trait Model —b —b —b —b

Part II. Use of Workstations and ReadAbout Materials

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the Following 

During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Used the ReadAbout materials 91.30 95.10 3.80 .493 

Computer workstation used 89.13 68.56 -20.57 .010 

Independent workstation used 58.70 57.74 -0.96 .919 

Overall Fidelity

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing:a

40 to 100 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed abovec 76.09 73.33 –2.76 .863 

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 23.91 26.24 2.33 .801 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form Behaviors Listed Above That 

Teachers Were Observed Implementing 45.89 46.38 0.49 .882 

Sample Sized 53 46 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: The reported differences are regression adjusted to account for school effects. The Year 1 mean is the raw mean, 

the Year 2 mean is the Year 1 mean plus the regression-adjusted difference between years. Note that this explains 

the difference from the raw Year 2 means reported in Table II.15. 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers (observed and

not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula

did not engage in the behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in this table are based on all behaviors 

in all sections of the fidelity form, not only on the behaviors in the observed sections. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The 40 to 79 percent and the 80 to 100 percent categories have been combined to protect teacher confidentiality. 

d

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 
72 

TABLE II.17 

FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE READABOUT CURRICULUM, 

BY TEACHER EXPERIENCE WITH THE CURRICULUM 

Teachers in 

Year 2 Only 

Teachers in 

Both 

Years Difference p-value 

Percentage of Teachers Who Reported Using ReadAbout 81.82 100.00 18.18 .013* 

Part I, Section I. Comprehension

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) on the 

strategy or skill 63.64 68.75 5.11 .762 

Provided opportunities for students to apply the skill (guided 

practice) 72.73 75.00 2.27 .885 

Part I, Section II. Vocabulary

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) on the 

strategy or skill 27.27 21.88 -5.39 .723 

Provided opportunities for students to apply skill (guided practice) 27.27 21.88 -5.39 .723 

Part I, Section III. Writing

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Provided students instruction on the selected 6+1 Writing Trait —b —b —b —b

Provided opportunities to apply the 6+1 Writing Trait Model —b —b —b —b

Part II. Use of Workstations and ReadAbout Materials

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed to Have Done the 

Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Used the ReadAbout materials 81.82 100.0 18.18 .013* 

Computer workstation used 63.64 71.88 8.24 .618 

Independent workstation used 45.45 59.38 13.93 .435 

Overall Fidelity

Percentage of Teachers Who Were Observed Implementing:a

80 to 100 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above —b —b —b —b

40 to 79 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 63.64 75.00 11.36 .480 

0 to 39 percent of the fidelity form behaviors listed above 27.27 25.00 -2.27 .885 

Mean Percentage of the Fidelity Form Behaviors Listed Above That 

Teachers Were Observed Implementing 44.45 47.22 2.77 .643 

Sample Size 12 34 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: These differences are not regression adjusted. 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers (observed and

not observed for fidelity) are included in these calculations. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula

did not engage in the behaviors listed in this table. In addition, the calculations presented in this table are based on all behaviors 

in all sections of the fidelity form, not only on the behaviors in the observed sections. 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level.
73 

 

4. Reading for Knowledge 

As mentioned in Chapter I, Reading for Knowledge was not implemented in the second year 

of the study. We summarize Reading for Knowledge fidelity information from the first study 

year below to help readers interpret the follow-up impacts presented in Chapter IV. Like Read 

for Real, the Reading for Knowledge intervention involved two types of instructional days, both 

observed for the study. Fidelity on days 1 and 3, which involved teacher-directed instruction, 

was assessed based on 9 items. Fidelity on days 2 and 4, which involved students working in 

cooperative groups, was based on 13 items.36 

On teacher-directed instruction days, Reading for Knowledge teachers were observed 

implementing 58 percent of the teaching practices deemed important by developers for Reading 

for Knowledge implementation (not shown in table). On the teacher-directed instruction days, 

Reading for Knowledge teachers had the highest rates of implementation (67 to 71 percent) on 

activities related to building background knowledge about the topic of the text or about a skill or 

strategy and explaining or reviewing the skill/strategy. Fifty-two to 57 percent of teachers were 

observed presenting the reading goal, awarding cooperation/improvement points, and following 

the recommended pacing. 

On days 2 and 4, when students were working in cooperative groups, Reading for 

Knowledge teachers were observed implementing, on average, 65 percent of the teaching 

practices that developers considered important to the implementation of the intervention (not 

shown in table). On days 2 and 4, Reading for Knowledge teachers had the highest rates of 

implementation on activities related to presenting the reading goal, discussing key points about 

the day’s skill/strategy, providing feedback and prompts to student pairs during partner reading, 

circulating in the classroom and monitoring team discussions, and asking team members to share 

with the class (76 to 88 percent). 

D. READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES 

In this section, we examine data from the ERC observation form, which (as described in 

Chapter I) was designed to gather information on the number of times treatment and control 

group fifth-grade teachers engaged in a set of general (non-intervention-specific) teaching 

practices related to reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction.37 This is in contrast to the 

fidelity observation protocols discussed in the previous section, which focused on teaching 

practices and procedures specific to each intervention. 

36On days 1 and 3, teachers were observed to assess whether they built background knowledge, explained a 

strategy, read text aloud, and helped students think of or apply a strategy. On days 2 and 4, teachers were observed 

to assess whether they used whole group and partner activities, provided feedback and prompts to partner pairs, 

charted student progress, reviewed routines, read questions aloud, circulated around the classroom, and asked teams 

to share with the class. 

37These practices were selected because most of them were components of effective reading comprehension 

instructional interventions studied in small-scale experimental research (see Carlisle and Rice 2002; Pearson and 

Dole 1987). 
74 

 

We begin this section by presenting a description of the process used to construct teacher 

practice scales from the observational data. We then present findings from our examination of 

the differences in teaching practices between fifth-grade teachers in the intervention groups and 

the control group. This section also presents findings from comparisons of the instructional 

practices of teachers participating in the study for two years and teachers new to the study in 

Year 2. Finally, we present findings from comparisons of instructional practices in Years 1 and 2 

for teachers participating in both years of the study. 

Constructing Teacher Practice Scales. The ERC observational protocol allowed the study 

team to collect data from all fifth-grade classrooms (both intervention and control) using a 

common measure. Thus, it is possible to describe and compare teachers’ instructional practices 

across treatment and control groups and across cohorts. With the ERC observational protocol, 

observers recorded the number of times treatment and control group teachers engaged in specific 

teaching practices. A classroom observation consisted of up to ten 10-minute intervals. For each 

interval, observers looked for 28 instructional practices. There were also 14 items that were 

completed at the end of each observation, which addressed issues such as student engagement 

during the lesson and teachers’ management of student behavior (see Appendix Table I.1 for a 

list of practices on the ERC). Classroom observations were conducted for all the class periods in 

a given day for which the teacher indicated she would be using informational text.38 To condense 

this observation data into a manageable number of variables for analysis, we developed scales 

based on these practices using the following three steps: 

1. Coding tallies for each item into ordinal categories. To support subsequent 

psychometric analyses—particularly the implementation of item response theory 

(IRT) scaling discussed in step 3 below—ordinal categories were created for the 

distributions of both sums and averages of tallies (or number of times teachers 

engaged in a specific teaching practice) across the 10-minute intervals for each item. 

These categories were based on an investigation of the distribution of the averages of 

tallies across intervals for each item. These ordered categories represented the extent 

to which each teacher practice was observed, where higher categories represented 

teachers engaging in the particular practice more frequently. For example, if the 

average number of tallies across intervals for a particular item ranged from 0 to 10 for 

all teachers, the average tally for a particular teacher might have been assigned to one 

of three categories (0-3, 4-6, and 7-10) depending on the average number of times 

across intervals the teacher was observed engaging in that practice.39 

38Although classrooms, on average, were observed multiple times during the day, they were only observed for 

a single day, which may reduce the reliability of the teacher practice scales based on the ERC data (relative to 

observations conducted over multiple days). The teacher practice scales based on a single day of observations still 

allow us to calculate valid estimates of treatment/control differences on the scales (which are presented in this 

chapter). 

39The ordered categories were then assigned numerical values. For each item, a value of zero was assigned to 

the lowest category. Values for subsequent categories were assigned by increasing the number of the previous 

category by one until the highest category was reached. In the example provided in the text, teachers in the 0-3 

category were assigned a value of 0, teachers in the 4-6 category were assigned a value of 1, and teachers in the 7-10 

category were assigned a value of 2. 
75 

 

2. Conducting an exploratory factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was 

conducted to identify the underlying variables that best explain the ERC items.40 This 

analysis enabled us to develop conceptual groupings of items that appeared related to 

the same underlying concept or theme. Items that contributed little to the coherence of 

these groupings were discarded.41

3. Estimating an item response theory model using the categorical variables formed in 

step 1. IRT scaling was performed to obtain an estimated score for each teacher. We 

followed this modeling approach because: (1) it allowed us to properly model the 

cross-loadings of items as indicated by the EFA (six items cross-loaded on two of the 

underlying variables explaining the ERC items that were found in step 2); (2) it 

maximized the amount of data we were able to use to construct the scales; and (3) it 

enabled us to account for the fact that some of our items have shared question stems. 

The IRT scaling also permitted a rigorous assessment of the psychometric properties 

of the items of the ERC form, as well as the unbiased estimation of scores and level 

of reliability for each teacher’s score and the overall distribution of scores. See 

Appendix F for a detailed description of the IRT model used to develop teacher 

practice scales. 

This process resulted in three scales that were used in the study’s analyses.42 The ERC items 

were distributed across these scales, and, as noted above, six items contribute to more than one 

scale. The results from the factor analysis show that items contribute to the scales with different 

weights, depending on the degree to which the items are related to the underlying concepts 

measured by the scales. (See Table II.18 for a listing of the ERC items contained in each scale.) 

Therefore, the study team assigned names to these scales based on the items they include and the 

weight that specific items take on in each scale based on the results from the factor analysis. The 

resulting three scales and the distinct and overlapping items included in each scale are the 

following: 

• Traditional Interaction. This scale, which captures interactive teaching practices that 

have been in use for many decades in American schools (Durkin 1978-1979; Brophy 

and Evertson 1976), is based on 13 teaching practices (6 related to vocabulary and 7 

to comprehension instruction). Unique items on this scale include practices related to 

teachers (a) asking questions based on material in text beyond a literal level; (b) 

elaborating concepts during and after reading; (c) providing definitions or 

explanations; (d) providing examples of multiple meanings; (e) using visuals and 

40Factor extraction was conducted using unweighted least squares estimation; oblique rotation was used 

because it was expected that the underlying variables would be correlated (our analysis ultimately confirmed this 

expectation). 

41The EFA methods just described were used for items on Part I of the ERC. For Part II ERC items, EFA was 

not necessary because there were clear groupings of items that shared similar content themes. 

42Scale scores ranged from 408 to 551 for classrooms observed in the second year of the study. Scale scores 

ranged from 405 to 562 for classrooms observed in the first year of the study. See Table F.3 in Appendix F for the 

range of each scale. 
76 

TABLE II.18 

EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION ITEMS CONTAINED IN STUDY SCALES 

Scales 

Item 

Traditional 

Interaction 

Reading 

Strategy 

Guidance 

Classroom 

Management 

and Student 

Engagement 

Comprehension Items 

Teacher Explains Text Structure √

Students Practice Use of Text Structure √

Teacher Models Comprehension Strategies √

Teacher Explains Comprehension Strategies √

Students Practice Comprehension Strategies √

Teacher Explains How to Generate Questions √ √

Students Practice Generating Questions √ √

Teacher Explains Text Features √ √

Students Practice Using Text Features √ √

Teacher Asks Students to Justify Responses √ √

Teacher Asks Questions Based on Material in Text 

Beyond a Literal Level √

Teacher Elaborates Concepts During and After Reading √

Vocabulary Items 

Teacher Provides Definition or Explanation √

Teacher Provides Examples / Multiple Meanings √

Teacher Uses Visuals / Pictures √

Teacher Teaches Word-Learning Strategies √ √

Students Asked to Do Something Requiring Word 

Knowledge √

Student Given Chance to Apply Word-Learning Strategies √

Other Items 

Teacher Maximized Instruction Time √

Teacher Managed Student Behavior √

Student Engagement – First Half of Observation √

Student Engagement – Second Half of Observation √
77 

 

pictures; (f) asking students to work on tasks requiring word knowledge; and (g) 

giving students the opportunity to apply word learning strategies. 

• Reading Strategy Guidance. This scale reflects more heavily the practices entailed in 

research on explicit comprehension strategies (see Pearson and Dole 1987; Carlisle 

and Rice 2002). The scale includes 11 items. Unique items on this scale include 

practices related to teachers explaining and modeling (and students practicing) 

comprehension strategies and text structure (for example, cause-effect or comparecontrast) to improve comprehension. 

• Classroom Management and Student Engagement. This scale includes one item 

related to how teachers manage student behavior, one item related to maximizing 

instructional time, and two items related to students’ engagement during class.43 

• Overlapping Items. Six items are contained in both the Traditional Interaction scale 

and the Reading Strategy Guidance scale because the results from the EFA 

(conducted to identify groupings of items related to the same underlying concept) 

showed that the items loaded on both scales. These items include practices related to 

teachers (1) explaining (and having students practice) the use of question generation 

and text features (for example, captions or subheadings) to improve comprehension, 

(2) asking students to justify their responses, and (3) teaching word-learning 

strategies. 

 We assessed the reliability of each of the three scales for classrooms observed in the second 

study year. The reliability of the Traditional Interaction scale was 0.65, the reliability of the 

Reading Strategy Guidance scale was 0.63, and the reliability of the Classroom Management 

scale was 0.86.44,45 

Differences in Instructional Practices in the Second Year of the Study Between 

Experimental and Control Group Teachers. For two of the three scales (Classroom 

Management and Reading Strategy Guidance), there were no statistically significant differences 

in Year 2 between the treatment and control classrooms (Table II.19). However, a statistically 

43The items in this scale were part of the set of items that were completed once at the end of each observation. 

44For classrooms observed in Year 1, the reliability of the Traditional Interaction scale was 0.70, the reliability 

of the Reading Strategy Guidance scale was 0.72, and the reliability of the Classroom Management scale was 0.83. 

See Appendix F for additional information on the reliability, inter-rater reliability, and validity of the observation 

scales. Appendix F also provides figures showing how the scale score values can be interpreted and linked back to 

the items contained in the scales. 

45Reliability is positively related to statistical precision. Estimates of differences between two groups based on 

measures with lower reliability are less precise. 
78

TABLE II.19 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS IN YEARS 1 AND 2 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Traditional Interaction Scale 

Year 1 (Spring 2007)

Impact 502.36 -4.02* -3.63 -1.77 -3.02 

Effect Size -0.62 -0.56 -0.27 -0.47 

p-value 0.04 0.30 0.90 0.09 

Year 2 (Spring 2008) 

Impact 500.96 -3.50* -3.63 1.49 -2.12 

Effect Size -0.54 -0.56 0.23 -0.33 

p-value 0.02 0.21 0.94 0.25 

Difference Between Years 1 and 2 

Difference in Impact 0.53 0.00 3.26 0.90 

Difference in Effect Size 0.08 0.00 0.51 0.14 

p-value for the Difference 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.87 

Reading Strategy Guidance Scale 

Year 1 (Spring 2007)

Impact 499.09 1.29 2.31 0.22 1.21 

Effect Size 0.19 0.34 0.03 0.18 

p-value 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.91 

Year 2 (Spring 2008) 

Impact 500.2 1.50 1.09 0.22 0.90 

Effect Size 0.22 0.16 0.03 0.13 

p-value 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.92 

Difference Between Years 1 and 2 

Difference in Impact 0.21 -1.22 -0.01 -0.31 

Difference in Effect Size 0.03 -0.18 0.00 -0.05 

p-value for the Difference 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 

Classroom Management Scale 

Year 1 (Spring 2007)

Impact 503.94 -1.93 -10.68 0.07 -3.96 

Effect Size -0.06 -0.35 0.00 -0.13 

p-value 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.92 

Year 2 (Spring 2008) 

Impact 505.55 -9.38 -13.92 0.70 -8.13 

Effect Size -0.30 -0.45 0.02 -0.26 

p-value 0.87 0.43 1.00 0.56 

Difference Between Years 1 and 2 

Difference in Impact -7.45 -3.24 0.63 -4.17 

Difference in Effect Size -0.24 -0.11 0.02 -0.14 

p-value for the Difference 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.89 

Number of Teachers in Year 1a 59 52 50 54 156 

Number of Teachers in Year 2b 54 53 46 31 130 
Table II.19 (continued) 

 

79 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: The scales presented in this table were constructed to capture the frequency of the behaviors in each 

instructional practice domain shown above. For each scale, the numbers reported in the column labeled 

“Control Group” are the average predicted value of the scale for all teachers as if they were in the 

control group. The numbers reported in the remaining columns are, by row: (1) the difference in means 

between treatment and control group, (2) the effect size, and (3) the p-value of the difference. The pvalues presented in this table are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. For each scale, the 

differences between cohort impacts are also reported. Regression-adjusted differences were calculated 

taking into account the clustering of teachers within schools. Variables in this model include pretest 

GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, 

school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher race, and district indicators. Smaller scale values 

represent lower levels of behaviors in the instructional practice domain, while larger values represent 

higher values of the behaviors. See Appendix F for more information on interpreting the scale score 

values. 

a

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of fifth-grade teachers who participated in the study’s 

first year. Some teachers taught more than one class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the 

number of classroom observations for which scale scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations 

vary from 91 percent for CRISS classrooms to 100 percent for Read for Real classrooms. 

b

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of fifth-grade teachers participating in the study’s 

second year. Some teachers taught more than one class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the 

number of classroom observations for which scale scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations 

vary from 90 percent for CRISS classrooms to 100 percent for ReadAbout classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
80 

 

significant difference was found on the Traditional Interaction scale in the second year,46 with 

Project CRISS teachers having lower scores on the scale than control teachers (effect size: 

-0.54).47

To assess the robustness of the statistically significant difference observed for Project 

CRISS on the Traditional Interaction scale scores in the study’s second year, we conducted a 

sensitivity analysis in which scales were constructed using sums of tallies across intervals 

(instead of using averages of tallies across intervals as was done above). Since teachers were 

observed during the class periods in which they indicated they would be using informational text 

on the day the observations were conducted, all teachers were not observed for the same number 

of intervals. Thus, the sum of tallies across intervals is a substantively different indicator from 

the average. The analysis of Year 2 teacher practice scales based on sums was conducted in all 

other respects using the same method as the analysis based on averages. Differences on these 

scales based on sums of tallies between Year 2 treatment and control teachers were not 

statistically significant (see Appendix Table H.7). 

As an additional sensitivity analysis, we considered a different set of teacher instructional 

practices scales. These scales were constructed by grouping all items pertaining to teaching 

comprehension to create a Teaching Comprehension scale, and all items regarding teaching 

vocabulary to create a Teaching Vocabulary scale. These scales were also created in two ways: 

using sums and using averages of tallies from the classroom observations.48 We did not find any 

statistically significant differences on these scales between treatment and control teachers in the 

second year of the study (see Appendix Table H.8). Taken together, these sensitivity tests 

suggest that the statistically significant impact on Traditional Interaction scale scores is sensitive 

to the way in which the scale is constructed. 

To further examine the Year 2 differences between Project CRISS and control teachers on 

the Traditional Interaction scale, we examined treatment/control differences on the ERC items on 

which each scale is based, both for each treatment group separately and for the combined 

treatment group (Tables II.20, II.21, and II.22). To ensure that the p-values from these analyses 

are comparable to the p-values reported in Table II.19 (where multiple comparisons adjustments 

46To help interpret the treatment-control difference observed on the Traditional Interaction scale, it is useful to 

link the difference in scale scores to the corresponding differences in the frequency categories used to characterize 

teachers’ engagement in the individual behaviors underlying each scale. Figures F.1.A and F.1.B in Appendix F 

relate this difference based on the scales to the underlying frequencies of the specific behaviors making up the scale. 

For both the treatment and control groups, the mean scale scores resulted from behaviors whose mean frequency fell 

within the lowest category for each of the items underlying the scale. The appendix figures show that teachers in 

both groups, on average, were engaging in these behaviors fewer than once during each 10-minute interval they 

were observed, which means that the difference between the treatment and control groups amounted to less than one 

time during the typical 10-minute interval. 

47A similar effect was found for teachers observed in the first year (see Table II.19): Project CRISS teachers 

had statistically significantly lower scores on the Traditional Interaction scale than teachers in the control group 

(effect size: -0.62). The difference in these effects between Years 1 and 2 was not statistically significant. 

48The reliability of these scales was 0.60 and 0.64, for the Teaching Comprehension and Teaching Vocabulary 

scales based on averages, respectively. 
81

TABLE II.20 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE TRADITIONAL INTERACTION 

SCALE 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the Control Group: 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Comprehension Items 

Teacher Explains How to Generate Questions (Item 4b) 

Difference 0.21 0.08 -0.05 0.11 0.04 

Effect Size 0.25 -0.16 0.36 0.13 

p-value 0.71 0.86 0.31 0.52 

Students Practice Generating Questions (Item 4c) 

Difference 0.33 0.33 -0.06 0.19 0.17 

Effect Size 0.94 -0.18 0.52 0.48 

p-value 0.10 0.92 0.30 0.09 

Teacher Explains Text Features (Item 5b) 

Difference 0.24 -0.15* -0.14* 0.08 -0.09* 

Effect Size -0.42 -0.38 0.23 -0.25 

p-value 0.02 0.04 0.55 0.04 

Students Practice Using Text Features (Item 5c) 

Difference 0.31 -0.12 -0.22* 0.09 -0.12 

Effect Size -0.24 -0.45 0.19 -0.25 

p-value 0.33 0.01 0.84 0.08 

Teacher Asks Students to Justify Responses (Item 6c) 

Difference 0.33 -0.05 -0.13 -0.06 -0.09 

Effect Size -0.11 -0.32 -0.13 -0.20 

p-value 0.94 0.28 0.91 0.19 

Teacher Asks Questions Based on Material in Text Beyond a Literal Level (Item 7c) 

Difference 1.23 -0.61* -0.47 0.06 -0.38* 

Effect Size -0.45 -0.35 0.05 -0.28 

p-value 0.03 0.15 0.98 0.05 

Teacher Elaborates Concepts During and After Reading (Item 8) 

Difference 1.54 -0.52 -0.50 -0.21 -0.40 

Effect Size -0.33 -0.32 -0.13 -0.25 

p-value 0.20 0.30 0.71 0.10 

Vocabulary Items 

Teacher Provides Definition or Explanation (Item 1) 

Difference 0.56 -0.21 0.08 0.19 0.00 

Effect Size -0.35 0.14 0.32 0.00 

p-value 0.13 0.91 0.42 1.00 

Teacher Provides Examples/Multiple Meanings (Item 2) 

Difference 0.82 -0.23 0.12 0.23 0.02 

Effect Size -0.23 0.12 0.23 0.02 

p-value 0.20 0.80 0.37 0.87 
Table II.20 (continued) 

82 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the Control Group: 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Teacher Uses Visuals/Pictures (Item 3) 

Difference 0.27 -0.10 -0.16 0.05 -0.08 

Effect Size -0.16 -0.25 0.09 -0.12 

p-value 0.33 0.24 0.89 0.31 

Teacher Teaches Word-Learning Strategies (Item 4) 

Difference 0.14 -0.08 -0.08 -0.02 -0.07 

Effect Size -0.29 -0.28 -0.07 -0.25 

p-value 0.21 0.33 0.96 0.15 

Students Asked to Do Something Requiring Word Knowledge (Item 5) 

Difference 1.53 -0.44 0.06 0.48 0.01 

Effect Size -0.29 0.04 0.32 0.01 

p-value 0.20 0.99 0.30 0.97 

Student Given Chance to Apply Word-Learning Strategies (Item 6) 

Difference 0.10 -0.05 -0.03 0.05 -0.02 

Effect Size -0.17 -0.11 0.19 -0.06 

p-value 0.52 0.85 0.63 0.69 

Number of Teachers in Year 2a 54 53 46 31 130 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: Each item presented in this table captures the average number of times within a 10-minute interval that 

the behavior listed was observed throughout the observations conducted in a classroom. For each item, 

the number reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” is the actual average value of the 

item for the control group, not a regression-adjusted mean. The numbers reported in the remaining 

columns are, by row: (1) the difference in means between treatment and control group, (2) the effect 

size, and (3) the p-value of the difference. Regression-adjusted differences were calculated taking into 

account the clustering of teachers within schools. To ensure that the p-values from this table are 

comparable to the p-values reported for the differences on the Traditional Interaction scale in Table 

II.19 (where p-values were adjusted for three outcomes), each p-value from this table was computed 

taking into account differences on three outcomes. (Comparability in the approach to adjusting pvalues is desired because the purpose of the analysis shown in this table is to better understand which 

specific components of the Traditional Interaction scale are driving the differences, and using a 

different standard of significance in this table would make that comparison more difficult.) The three 

outcomes are: (1) the Reading Strategy Guidance scale (see Table II.19), (2) the Classroom 

Management scale (see Table II.19), and (3) one of the specific items contained in the Traditional 

Interaction scale. For example, for the first row in this table, p-values are adjusted for (1) the Reading 

Strategy Guidance scale, (2) the Classroom Management scale, and (3) the classroom observation item 

listed in that row (the extent to which teachers explain how to generate questions). In addition to 

adjusting the p-values for the number of outcomes, it is necessary to adjust the p-values to account for 

the number of comparisons between groups that are being conducted. In particular, for the comparisons 

of each treatment group and the control group, the results are adjusted for nine comparisons because 

differences are estimated for each of the three intervention groups for each of the three outcomes. For 

the combined treatment group, the results are adjusted for three comparisons (since there is a single 

group being compared to the control group for each of the three outcomes). Variables in this model 

include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher ethnicity and race, and district 

indicators. 
Table II.20 (continued) 

83 

a

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of teachers participating in the study in Year 2. Some 

teachers taught more than one class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the number of classrooms 

observations for which scale scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations vary from 90 percent 

for CRISS classrooms to 100 percent for ReadAbout classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
84

TABLE II.21 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE READING STRATEGY 

GUIDANCE SCALE 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the Control Group: 

Control 

Group Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Comprehension Items 

Teacher Explains Text Structures (Item 2b) 

Difference 0.26 0.05 0.09 -0.10 0.04 

Effect Size 0.13 0.25 -0.29 0.10 

p-value 0.92 0.75 0.51 0.51 

Students Practice Using Text Structures (Item 2c) 

Difference 0.41 0.11 0.18 -0.21 0.07 

Effect Size 0.17 0.30 -0.34 0.11 

p-value 0.75 0.51 0.26 0.41 

Teacher Models Comprehension Strategies (Item 3a) 

Difference -0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.03 

Effect Size 3.34 1.03 2.29 2.09 

p-value 0.18 0.64 0.25 0.18 

Teacher Explains Comprehension Strategies (Item 3b) 

Difference 0.74 0.08 0.57 0.75* 0.33 

Effect Size 0.08 0.55 0.73 0.32 

p-value 0.97 0.12 0.00 0.11 

Students Practice Comprehension Strategies (Item 3c) 

Difference 1.54 0.09 0.43 0.62 0.22 

Effect Size 0.04 0.20 0.28 0.10 

p-value 0.99 0.58 0.14 0.43 

Teacher Explains How to Generate Questions (Item 4b) 

Difference 0.21 0.08 -0.05 0.11 0.04 

Effect Size 0.25 -0.16 0.36 0.13 

p-value 0.71 0.86 0.31 0.52 

Students Practice Generating Questions (Item 4c) 

Difference 0.33 0.33 -0.06 0.19 0.17 

Effect Size 0.94 -0.18 0.53 0.48 

p-value 0.10 0.92 0.30 0.09 

Teacher Explains Text Features (Item 5b) 

Difference 0.24 -0.15* -0.14* 0.08 -0.09* 

Effect Size -0.42 -0.38 0.23 -0.25 

p-value 0.02 0.04 0.55 0.04 

Students Practice Using Text Features (Item 5c) 

Difference 0.31 -0.12 -0.22* 0.09 -0.12 

Effect Size -0.24 -0.45 0.19 -0.25 

p-value 0.33 0.01 0.84 0.08 
Table II.21 (continued)

85 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the Control Group: 

Control 

Group Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Teacher Asks Students to Justify Response (Item 6c) 

Difference 0.33 -0.05 -0.13 -0.06 -0.09 

Effect Size -0.11 -0.32 -0.13 -0.20 

p-value 0.94 0.28 0.91 0.19 

Vocabulary Items 

Teacher Teaches Word-Learning Strategies (Item 4) 

Difference 0.14 -0.08 -0.08 -0.02 -0.07 

Effect Size -0.29 -0.28 -0.07 -0.25 

p-value 0.21 0.33 0.96 0.15 

Number of Teachers in Year 2a 54 53 46 31 130 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: Each item presented in this table captures the average number of times within a 10-minute interval that 

the behavior listed was observed throughout the observations conducted in a classroom. For each item, 

the number reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” is the actual average value of the 

item for the control group, not a regression-adjusted mean. The numbers reported in the remaining 

columns are, by row: (1) the difference in means between treatment and control group, (2) the effect 

size, and (3) the p-value of the difference. Regression-adjusted differences were calculated taking into 

account the clustering of teachers within schools. To ensure that the p-values from this table are 

comparable to the p-values reported for the differences on the Reading Strategy Guidance scale in 

Table II.19 (where p-values were adjusted for three outcomes), each p-value from this table was 

computed taking into account differences on three outcomes. (Comparability in the approach to 

adjusting p-values is desired because the purpose of the analysis shown in this table is to better 

understand which specific components of the Reading Strategy Guidance scale are driving the 

differences, and using a different standard of significance in this table would make that comparison 

more difficult.) The three outcomes are: (1) the Traditional Interaction scale (see Table II.19), (2) the 

Classroom Management scale (see Table II.19), and (3) one of the specific items contained in the 

Reading Strategy Guidance scale. For example, for the first row in this table, p-values are adjusted for 

(1) the Traditional Interaction scale, (2) the Classroom Management scale, and (3) the classroom 

observation item listed in that row (the extent to which teachers explain text structure). In addition to 

adjusting the p-values for the number of outcomes, it is necessary to adjust the p-values to account for 

the number of comparisons between groups that are being conducted. In particular, for the comparisons 

of each treatment group and the control group, the results are adjusted for nine comparisons because 

differences are estimated for each of the three intervention groups for each of the three outcomes. For 

the combined treatment group, the results are adjusted for three comparisons (since there is a single 

group being compared to the control group for each of the three outcomes). Variables in this model 

include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher ethnicity and race, and district 

indicators. 

a

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of teachers participating in the study in Year 2. Some 

teachers taught more than one class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the number of classroom 

observations for which scale scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations vary from 90 percent 

for CRISS classrooms to 100 percent for ReadAbout classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
86

TABLE II.22 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS FOR ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT SCALE 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the Control Group: 

Control 

Group Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Teacher Maximized Instruction Time (Item 10) 

Difference 3.28 -0.11 -0.06 0.09 -0.04 

Effect Size -0.15 -0.08 0.13 -0.05 

p-value 0.83 0.95 0.94 0.74 

Teacher Managed Student Behavior (Item 11) 

Difference 3.53 -0.27 -0.25 -0.03 -0.21* 

Effect Size -0.43 -0.41 -0.04 -0.35 

p-value 0.07 0.20 1.00 0.04 

Student Engagement in First Half of Lesson (Item 13) 

Difference 2.70 0.05 -0.11 0.17 0.00 

Effect Size 0.12 -0.24 0.38 0.01 

p-value 0.88 0.48 0.22 0.97 

Student Engagement in Second Half of Lesson (Item 14) 

Difference 2.63 -0.03 -0.17 0.15 -0.05 

Effect Size -0.06 -0.34 0.29 -0.10 

p-value 0.98 0.17 0.63 0.59 

Number of Teachersa 54 53 46 31 130 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: Each item presented in this table captures the average number of times within a 10-minute interval that 

the behavior listed was observed throughout the observations conducted in a classroom. For each item, 

the number reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” is the actual average value of the 

item for the control group, not a regression-adjusted mean. The numbers reported in the remaining 

columns are, by row: (1) the difference in means between treatment and control group, (2) the effect 

size, and (3) the p-value of the difference. Regression-adjusted differences were calculated taking into 

account the clustering of teachers within schools. To ensure that the p-values from this table are 

comparable to the p-values reported for the differences on the Classroom Management scale in Table 

II.19 (where p-values were adjusted for three outcomes), each p-value from this table was computed 

taking into account differences on three outcomes. (Comparability in the approach to adjusting pvalues is desired because the purpose of the analysis shown in this table is to better understand which 

specific components of the Classroom Management scale are driving the differences, and using a 

different standard of significance in this table would make that comparison more difficult.) The three 

outcomes are: (1) the Traditional Interaction scale (see Table II.19), (2) the Reading Strategy Guidance 

scale (see Table II.19), and (3) one of the specific items contained in the Classroom Management 

scale. For example, for the first row in this table, p-values are adjusted for (1) the Traditional 

Interaction scale, (2) the Reading Strategy Guidance scale, and (3) the classroom observation item 

listed in that row (the extent to which teachers maximized instruction time). In addition to adjusting the 

p-values for the number of outcomes, it is necessary to adjust the p-values to account for the number of 

comparisons between groups that are being conducted. In particular, for the comparisons of each 

treatment group and the control group, the results are adjusted for nine comparisons because 

differences are estimated for each of the three intervention groups for each of the three outcomes. For 

the combined treatment group, the results are adjusted for three comparisons (since there is a single 

group being compared to the control group for each of the three outcomes).Variables in this model 

include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher ethnicity and race, and district 

indicators. 
Table II.22 (continued) 

 

87 

a

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study in Year 2. Some teachers 

taught more than one class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the number of classroom 

observations for which scale scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations vary from 90 percent 

for CRISS classrooms to 100 percent for ReadAbout classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
88 

 

were made to p-values for differences involving three outcomes), each p-value from these 

sensitivity tests was computed taking into account an adjustment of a similar magnitude.49 

These analyses show that the differences observed on the Traditional Interaction scale were 

driven by differences in teaching practices related to comprehension instruction (as opposed to 

vocabulary instruction). In particular, 21.4 percent (6 of 28) of the differences in teaching 

practices related to comprehension instruction were statistically significant (with lower levels for 

the treatment group than the control group), compared to no statistically significant differences in 

teaching practices related to vocabulary instruction (Table II.20). Statistically significant 

differences were found for the following comprehension-related teaching practices (in all cases, 

treatment group teachers engaged in these practices less than did control group teachers): 

• Teachers explaining text features, which was statistically significant for Project 

CRISS, ReadAbout, and the combined treatment group (effect sizes: -0.42, -0.38, and 

-0.25, respectively) 

• Teachers having students practice using text features, which was statistically 

significant for ReadAbout (effect size: -0.45) 

• Teachers asking questions based on material in text beyond a literal level, which was 

statistically significant for Project CRISS and the combined treatment group (effect 

sizes: -0.45 and -0.28, respectively) 

We also found differences on the individual teacher practices included in the Reading 

Strategy Guidance scale. While 3 of 40 (7.5 percent) differences in teacher practices related to 

comprehension instruction were statistically significant, none of the differences in teacher 

practices related to vocabulary instruction were statistically significant (Table II.21). We found 

statistically significant differences in the following comprehension-related practices that are part 

of the Reading Strategy Guidance scale: 

• Teachers explaining comprehension strategies, which was statistically significantly 

higher for Read for Real teachers than for control group teachers (effect size: 0.73) 

49Comparability in the approach to adjusting p-values is important because the purpose of this analysis is to 

better understand which specific components of each scale are driving the overall differences between the treatment 

and control groups, and using a different standard of significance in this analysis would make that comparison more 

difficult. For each of these teaching practices analyses, the three outcomes for which we adjusted include one of the 

specific items contained in the scale currently being analyzed and the other two scales. For example, for the first row 

in Table II.20, p-values are adjusted for (1) the classroom observation item listed in that row (item 4b: the extent to 

which teachers explain how to generate questions), (2) the Reading Strategy Guidance scale, and (3) the Classroom 

Management scale. In addition to adjusting the p-values for the number of outcomes, it is necessary to adjust the 

p-values to account for the number of comparisons between groups that are being conducted. In particular, for the 

comparisons of each treatment group and the control group, the results are adjusted for nine comparisons because 

models are being estimated for each of the three intervention groups for each of the three outcomes. For the 

combined treatment group, the results are adjusted for three comparisons (because there is a single group being 

compared to the control group for each of the three outcomes). 
89 

• As described above, the Reading Strategy Guidance and Traditional Interaction scales 

share six overlapping items. For two of these shared items, statistically significant 

differences were found in the number of times teachers were observed: (1) explaining 

text features, which was statistically significantly lower for Project CRISS teachers, 

ReadAbout teachers, and the combined treatment group than for control group 

teachers and (2) having students practice using text features, which was statistically 

significantly lower for ReadAbout teachers than for control group teachers (see 

bullets above for effect sizes of these differences). 

For the teacher practices included in the Classroom Management scale (Table II.22), we 

found one statistically significant difference (6.3 percent of the 16 differences): 

• Teachers in the combined treatment group received lower ratings of their 

management of student behavior than teachers in the control group (effect size: -0.35) 

Instructional Practices of Teachers in Study for Two Years vs. Teachers New to Study 

in Year 2. We investigated whether treatment/control differences in instructional practices differ 

between two types of teachers during the study’s second year: (1) teachers who are new to the 

study and (2) fifth-grade teachers who had been in the study for two consecutive years. This 

analysis aims to determine whether treatment/control differences in instructional practices differ 

between teachers who have implemented the interventions for one year and teachers who are 

implementing their assigned curriculum for the first time. We found the following statistically 

significant differences when comparing instructional practices in Year 2 of teachers participating 

in the study for two years and teachers new to the study (Table II.23): 

• Project CRISS teachers participating in the study for two years had statistically 

significantly lower Traditional Interaction scale scores than control group teachers 

participating in the study for two years (effect size: -0.80). 

• The Project CRISS/control group difference on the Traditional Interaction scale for 

teachers in the study for two years was statistically significantly different from the 

Project CRISS/control group difference on that scale for teachers new to the study 

(difference in effect size: -0.95). The Project CRISS/control group difference on the 

Traditional Interaction scale of teachers new to the study in Year 2 was not 

statistically significant. 

• The combined treatment group/control group difference on the Traditional Interaction 

scale for teachers in the study for two years was statistically significantly different 

from the combined treatment group/control group difference on that scale for teachers 

new to the study (difference in effect size: -0.68). The combined treatment 

group/control group differences on the Traditional Interaction scale of the two groups 

of teachers were not statistically significant. 

Instructional Practices in Years 1 and 2 of Teachers Participating in the Study for Two 

Years. We conducted two additional analyses to examine how treatment/control differences in 
90

TABLE II.23 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICES IN THE SECOND STUDY YEAR BETWEEN TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY 

FOR TWO YEARS WITH TEACHERS NEW TO THE STUDY 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Traditional Interaction Scale 

Teachers in Study for Two Years

Impact -4.60* -3.42 1.12 -2.80 

Effect Size -0.80 -0.59 0.19 -0.49 

p-value 0.01 0.18 0.90 0.06 

Teachers New to the Study

Impact 0.85 -0.37 3.45 1.13 

Effect Size 0.15 -0.06 0.60 0.20 

p-value 0.98 1.00 0.61 0.74 

Difference Between Teachers in Study for Two Years and Teachers New to the Study

Difference in Impact -5.46* -3.05 -2.33 -3.93* 

Difference in Effect Size -0.95 -0.53 -0.41 -0.68 

p-value for the Difference 0.02 0.49 0.72 0.03 

Reading Strategy Guidance Scale 

Teachers in Study for Two Years

Impact 2.37 2.24 0.24 1.81 

Effect Size 0.39 0.37 0.04 0.30 

p-value 0.18 0.37 1.00 0.18 

Teachers New to the Study

Impact 0.61 -1.79 2.46 0.11 

Effect Size 0.10 -0.30 0.41 0.02 

p-value 1.00 0.99 0.89 1.00 

Difference Between Teachers in Study for Two Years and Teachers New to the Study

Difference in Impact 1.76 4.03 -2.22 1.71 

Difference in Effect Size 0.29 0.67 -0.37 0.28 

p-value for the Difference 0.85 0.48 0.78 0.55 

Classroom Management Scale 

Teachers in Study for Two Years

Impact -12.83 -9.63 -2.12 -9.01 

Effect Size -0.48 -0.36 -0.08 -0.34 

p-value 0.28 0.55 1.00 0.24 

Teachers New to the Study

Impact -1.47 -9.11 16.00 0.00 

Effect Size -0.06 -0.34 0.60 0.00 

p-value 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 

Difference Between Teachers in Study for Two Years and Teachers New to the Study

Difference in Impact -11.35 -0.52 -18.12 -9.02 

Difference in Effect Size -0.43 -0.02 -0.68 -0.34 

p-value for the Difference 0.64 1.00 0.50 0.42 
TABLE II.23 (continued) 

91 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Number of Year-Two Teachersa 53 46 31 130 

In Study for Two Consecutive Years 35 34 22 91 

New to Study 18 12 9 39 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

NOTE: The scales presented in this table were constructed to capture the frequency of the behaviors in each 

instructional practice domain shown above. For each scale and each group of Cohort 2 teachers, the 

numbers reported are, by row: (1) the difference in means between treatment and control group, (2) the 

effect size, and (3) the p-value of the difference. For each scale, the differences between impacts for 

teachers in the study for two years and teachers new to the study are also reported. The p-values

presented in this table are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. Regression-adjusted differences 

were calculated taking into account the clustering of teachers within schools. Variables in the 

regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student 

English language learner status, school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher ethnicity and 

race, and district indicators. 

a

Counts reflect the number of teachers participating in the study in Year 2. Some teachers taught more than one 

class. The calculations presented in the table are based on the number of classroom observations for which scale 

scores were calculated. The response rates for these calculations vary from 90 percent for CRISS classrooms to 100 

percent for ReadAbout classrooms. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
92 

instructional practices changed between the first and second years of the study for teachers 

participating in the study both years. First, we compared the treatment/control differences in 

teachers’ instructional practices in the first and second years of the study, as measured by the 

three teacher practice scales described above (see Table II.24). Second, we compared the 

treatment/control differences in teachers’ instructional practices in the first and second years of 

the study, as measured by the average number of times teachers engaged in specific teaching 

practices included in the ERC (Table II.25). These analyses were conducted to examine 

whether—for teachers in the study both years—treatment/control differences in teaching 

practices in the second year (after teachers had a year of experience with the interventions) were 

larger than those in the first year. 

We found one statistically significant treatment/control difference in instructional practice 

scales in the study’s first and second years for teachers participating in the study both years 

(Table II.24). 

• In the study’s second year, Project CRISS teachers exhibited lower Traditional 

Interaction scale scores than control group teachers (effect size: -0.75). This 

difference was not statistically significantly different from the Project CRISS/control 

group difference on this scale in the study’s first year. 

In the analyses focused on individual instructional practices, we found the following 

statistically significant treatment/control differences in individual instructional practices in the 

study’s second year for teachers participating in the study both years (Table II.25): 

• Project CRISS teachers were observed: 

- Providing fewer explanations or definitions than control teachers 

- Asking students to do something requiring word knowledge less than control 

teachers 

- Teaching using outlining and/or note taking more than control teachers 

- Using graphic organizers more than control teachers 

• ReadAbout teachers were observed having students practice using text features to 

interpret text less than control teachers 

• Read for Real teachers were observed asking students to justify their responses less 

than control teachers. The treatment/control difference in this practice in Year 1 was 

statistically significantly different from the treatment/control difference in Year 2 (not 

shown in table). 

• Teachers in the combined treatment group were observed teaching using outlining 

and/or note taking more than control teachers. 

We hypothesized that greater experience in implementing the interventions would lead to 

larger treatment/control group differences in instructional practices. There is little evidence to 

support this hypothesis. In 93 of 100 tests conducted (Tables II.24 and II.25), there were no
93

TABLE II.24 

DIFFERENCES IN CLASSROOM PRACTICE SCALES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

COMPARING SCALES IN YEARS 1 AND 2 FOR FIFTH-GRADE TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE 

STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Traditional Interaction Scale 

Year 1 

Impact -1.96 -1.86 -2.72 -1.76 

Effect Size -0.30 -0.29 -0.42 -0.27 

p-value 0.45 0.65 0.23 0.20 

Year 2

Impact -4.81* -3.93 0.96 -2.69 

Effect Size -0.75 -0.61 0.15 -0.42 

p-value 0.00 0.06 0.91 0.05 

Difference Between Year 1 and Year 2

Difference in Impact -2.85 -2.07 3.68 -0.93 

Difference in Effect Size -0.44 -0.32 0.57 -0.14 

p-value for the Difference 0.28 0.56 0.10 0.55 

Reading Strategy Guidance Scale 

Year 1

Impact 0.68 1.83 1.40 1.15 

Effect Size 0.10 0.27 0.21 0.17 

p-value 1.00 0.87 0.91 0.64 

Year 2

Impact 2.73 2.22 -0.01 1.68 

Effect Size 0.40 0.33 0.00 0.25 

p-value 0.15 0.57 1.00 0.25 

Difference Between Year 1 and Year 2

Difference in Impact 2.04 0.39 -1.42 0.53 

Difference in Effect Size 0.30 0.06 -0.21 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 0.65 1.00 0.76 0.77 

Classroom Management Scale 

Year 1

Impact 7.08 -2.46 7.57 4.25 

Effect Size 0.23 -0.08 0.25 0.14 

p-value 0.77 1.00 0.72 0.67 

Year 2

Impact -9.94 -11.32 -2.17 -7.59 

Effect Size -0.32 -0.37 -0.07 -0.25 

p-value 0.60 0.47 1.00 0.38 

Difference Between Year 1 and Year 2

Difference in Impact -17.02 -8.86 -9.74 -11.83 

Difference in Effect Size -0.55 -0.29 -0.32 -0.38 

p-value for the Difference 0.12 0.60 0.53 0.12 

Number of Fifth-Grade Teachers Participating in Study 

for Two Consecutive Years 35 34 22 91 
TABLE II.24 (continued) 

 

94 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team; classroom observations. 

NOTE: The scales presented in this table were constructed to capture the frequency of the behaviors in each 

instructional practice domain shown above. For each scale and each year, the numbers reported are, by 

row: (1) the difference in means between treatment and control group, (2) the effect size, and (3) the 

p-value of the difference. For each scale, the differences between impacts in Years 1 and 2 are also 

reported. The p-values presented in this table are adjusted for multiple hypotheses testing. Regressionadjusted differences were calculated taking into account the clustering of teachers within schools. 

Variables in the regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and 

race, student English language learner status, school location, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher 

ethnicity and race, and district indicators. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
95

TABLE II.25 

DIFFERENCES IN INDIVIDUAL CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL 

GROUPS, COMPARING INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN YEARS 1 AND 2 FOR FIFTH-GRADE 

TEACHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Part I, Comprehension 

Activates prior knowledge and/or previews text before reading 

Teacher models Year 1 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.01 

Year 2 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples 

and elaborations Year 1 -0.01 -0.23 0.22 0.01 

Year 2 0.09 0.23 0.31 0.24 

Students practice Year 1 0.13 -0.30 0.54 0.13 

Year 2 0.38 0.29 0.70 0.45 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students about text structure 

Teacher models Year 1 -0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Year 2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples 

and elaborations Year 1 -0.07 0.36 0.20 0.15 

Year 2 0.08 0.13 -0.06 0.06 

Students practice Year 1 -0.07 0.41 0.17 0.18 

Year 2 0.15 0.27 -0.15 0.11 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to use comprehension strategies 

Teacher models Year 1 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 

Year 2 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples 

and elaborations Year 1 -0.22 0.35 0.35 0.07 

Year 2 0.33 0.69 0.69 0.47 

Students practice Year 1 -0.20 0.52 -0.07 0.08 

Year 2 0.46 0.54 0.62 0.37 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to generate questions 

Teacher models Year 1 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 

Year 2 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples 

and elaborations Year 1 -0.01 -0.14 -0.19 -0.09 

Year 2 0.07 -0.05 -0.01 0.02 

Students practice Year 1 0.03 -0.07 -0.20 -0.05 

Year 2 0.41 0.03 0.10 0.21 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches text features to interpret text 

Teacher models Year 1 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Year 2 -0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples 

and elaborations Year 1 -0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 

Year 2 -0.13 -0.19 0.06 -0.08 

Students practice Year 1 -0.10 0.03 0.05 -0.00 

Year 2 -0.14 -0.29* 0.05 -0.15 

Teacher asks students to justify their responses 

Year 1 0.02 -0.05 -0.09 -0.02 

Year 2 -0.19 -0.15 -0.31* -0.16 
TABLE II.25 (continued) 

96 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Teacher asks questions based on material in the text that are beyond the literal level 

Year 1 -0.40 -0.29 -0.33 -0.35 

Year 2 -0.85 -0.79 -0.25 -0.66 

Teacher elaborates, clarifies, or links concepts during and after text reading 

Year 1 -0.62 -0.46 -0.25 -0.49 

Year 2 -0.76 -0.87 -0.31 -0.68 

Part I, Vocabulary 

Teacher provides an explanation and/or a definition or asks a student to read a definition 

Year 1 -0.43* -0.12 -0.07 -0.21 

Year 2 -0.39* -0.01 0.01 -0.12 

Teacher provides examples, contrasting examples, multiple meanings, immediate elaborations to students’ 

responses 

Year 1 -0.51 -0.52 -0.54 -0.54* 

Year 2 -0.47 -0.13 0.35 -0.18 

Teacher uses visuals/pictures, gestures related to word meaning, facial expressions, or demonstrations to 

discuss/demonstrate word meanings 

Year 1 -0.16 -0.18 -0.20 -0.20 

Year 2 -0.29 -0.23 0.02 -0.21 

Teacher teaches word-learning strategies using context clues, word parts, root meaning 

Year 1 -0.14* -0.04 -0.12* -0.10* 

Year 2 -0.11 -0.12 -0.05 -0.10 

Students do or are asked to do something that requires knowledge of words 

Year 1 -0.41 -0.74 -0.61 -0.60 

Year 2 -0.79* -0.17 0.74 -0.23 

Students are given an opportunity to apply word-learning strategies using context clues, word parts, and root 

meaning 

Year 1 -0.04 0.19 -0.01 0.07 

Year 2 -0.07 -0.02 0.06 -0.02 

Part II, Instruction Effectiveness 

Gave inaccurate and/or confusing explanations or feedback 

Year 1 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 

Year 2 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.08 

Missed opportunity to correct or address error 

Year 1 0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.01 

Year 2 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.03 

Provided opportunities for most students to participate actively during teacher-led instruction 

Year 1 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.08 

Year 2 -0.05 0.00 0.16 0.02 

Paced instruction so that the length of the comprehension or vocabulary activities was appropriate for this 

age group 

Year 1 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.09 

Year 2 -0.15 -0.09 -0.10 -0.10 

Taught using outlining and/or note taking 

Year 1 0.39* 0.07 0.15 0.21* 

Year 2 0.41* 0.07 0.21 0.23* 
TABLE II.25 (continued) 

97 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Used graphic organizers 

Year 1 0.32* -0.00 0.10 0.14 

Year 2 0.26* -0.04 -0.01 0.09 

Kept students thinking for two or more seconds before calling on a student to respond to a complex question 

Year 1 0.06 -0.05 -0.15 -0.04 

Year 2 -0.05 0.01 0.00 -0.01 

Gave independent/pairs/small-group practice in answering comprehension questions or applying 

comprehension strategy(ies) with expected written product 

Year 1 0.34* 0.25 0.04 0.22* 

Year 2 0.07 0.05 -0.08 0.03 

Used writing activities in response to reading (does not include fill-in-the-blank or one-word answers) 

Year 1 0.05 -0.09 -0.04 -0.03 

Year 2 0.16 0.12 0.01 0.14 

Part II, Teachers’ Management/Responsiveness to Students 

Teacher maximized the amount of time available for instruction 

Year 1 0.09 -0.19 0.27 0.05 

Year 2 -0.33 -0.22 -0.14 -0.20 

Teacher managed student behavior effectively in order to avoid disruptions and provide productive learning 

environments 

Year 1 0.12 -0.06 0.04 0.03 

Year 2 -0.31 -0.31 -0.07 -0.24 

Teacher redirected discussion if a student response was leading the group off topic/focus 

Year 1 0.22 -0.01 0.32 0.16 

Year 2 -0.35 -0.13 -0.79 -0.33 

Part II, Student Engagement 

Student engagement during the first half of the observation session 

Year 1 0.21 -0.07 0.14 0.08 

Year 2 -0.03 -0.15 0.19 -0.03 

Student engagement during the remainder of the observation session 

Year 1 0.18 -0.10 0.14 0.08 

Year 2 -0.11 -0.18 0.18 -0.06 

Number of Fifth-Grade Teachers 

Participating in Study for Two Consecutive 

Years 35 34 22 91 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team; classroom observations. 

NOTE: For each item and each year, the numbers reported are the difference in means between the treatment 

and control groups. Variables in the regression model include baseline GRADE and TOSCRF scores, 

student ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, school location, teacher gender, 

teacher age, teacher ethnicity and race, and district indicators. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
98 

differences in instructional practices across the treatment and control groups in the second year 

of the study. 

E. INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUP TEACHERS’ TIME ALLOCATION 

Knowing how the implementation of the interventions affected teachers’ use of time during 

the school day is important for understanding the impacts of the curricula. This is particularly 

relevant in the context of this study, as the school day was not extended to facilitate 

implementation of the study interventions. Instead, teachers needed to use the study curricula 

within the confines of the existing school day, meaning that less time had to be spent engaged in 

other activities that could also have affected students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, it is 

important to understand how teachers reallocated their time during the day to facilitate use of the 

interventions. 

In the second year of the study, as described in Chapter I, we collected data to help better 

understand these issues. The data collected allowed for three main analyses. First, to assess 

whether the interventions affected the type of activities in which teachers were engaged, we 

compared treatment and control teachers’ allocation of time during the day to various activities. 

Second, to assess whether the interventions affected the amount of time teachers devoted to 

informational text, we compared the amount of time treatment and control teachers reported 

using informational text with students in a typical week. Third, we asked treatment teachers to 

report the activities that they cut back on to make room for using the study interventions. 

Findings from the first set of analyses showed three statistically significant differences 

between Project CRISS and control group teachers’ time allocation (Table II.26). In particular, 

Project CRISS teachers were statistically significantly less likely than control teachers to report 

engaging in enrichment activities (such as art, music, or physical education), noncurricular 

activities (such as lunch, recess, or arrival/dismissal activities), and other activities. Similar 

patterns were observed for ReadAbout and Read for Real, but those differences were not 

statistically significant. Teachers from all three intervention groups reported spending a higher 

proportion of their day on reading activities relative to control teachers, but those differences 

were not statistically significant. The proportion of time treatment and control teachers spent in 

other activities did not differ significantly. 

The second set of analyses showed no statistically significant differences in the average 

number of minutes that treatment and control teachers reported using informational text with 

students (Table II.27). Therefore, there is no evidence that use of the study interventions led to 

an increase in use of informational text. Data collected from treatment teachers on the amount of 

time they spent using the study interventions with students in a typical week ranged from 

132 minutes for ReadAbout teachers to 192 minutes for Project CRISS teachers. 

In the third set of analyses, we found that, across all three treatment groups, teachers were 

most likely to report reducing time spent on other reading activities to make time for the use of 

the study interventions (Table II.28). Twelve percent of Project CRISS teachers, 18 percent of 

ReadAbout teachers, and 21 percent of Read for Real teachers reported reducing time spent on 

other reading activities to facilitate their use of the study interventions. The reduction in time 
99 

TABLE II.26 

TEACHER-REPORTED TIME ALLOCATION AS PROPORTION OF SCHOOL DAY, COHORT 2 FIFTH-GRADE CL

Control Group Project CRISS ReadAbout 

Activity 

Percentage 

of 

Teachers 

Engaging 

in Activity 

Among All 

Teachers, 

Average 

Proportion of 

Time Spent 

in Activity 

Percentage 

of 

Teachers 

Engaging 

in Activity 

Among All 

Teachers, 

Average 

Proportion of 

Time Spent in 

Activity 

Percentage 

of 

Teachers 

Engaging 

in Activity 

Among All 

Teachers, 

Average 

Proportion of 

Time Spent in 

Activity 

P

i

Reading Activitiesa 90.5 30.1 85.4 38.1 80.7 35.6 

(0.86) (0.05) (0.62) (0.10) 

Other Academic Activitiesb 90.4 37.3 80.9 34.6 84.0 39.8 

(0.51) (0.80) (0.79) (0.80) 

Enrichment Activitiesc 96.1 12.3 73.0* 11.8 84.0 10.0 

(0.02) (1.00) (0.23) (0.37) 

Noncurricular Activitiesd 100.0 16.8 82.9* 14.1 90.4 12.9 

(0.03) (0.12) (0.16) (0.07) 

Other 41.2 3.5 16.2* 1.3 30.1 1.7 

(0.03) (0.11) (0.84) (0.33) 

Number of Teacherse 54 53 46 

SOURCE: Teacher Time Allocation Survey. NOTE: For each activity and intervention group, we report the percentage of teachers who report engaging in the activity, the ave

the school day engaged in the activity, and two p-values corresponding to tests of whether the percentage of teachers who activity and the average proportion of time spent in each activity differ from the control group. We assumed that tespending time in a particular activity did not engage in that activity. The average proportion of time spent in each activi

including those who did not engage in the activity. 

aThis category includes the following items: (1) Separate Instruction Using Intervention Curriculum (CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read f

Reading Curriculum; (3) Supplemental Reading Curriculum (supplemental curricula other than the study interventions); (4) Compr(6) Fluency; (7) Reading Lesson Using Fiction Materials; (8) Reading Lesson Using Nonfiction Materials; and (9) Other Language Ar
TABLE II.26 (continued) 

100 

bThis category includes the following items: (1) Science Instruction (Textbooks), (2) Science Lab/Hands-on, (3) Social Studies/H

Events, and (5) Computer Instruction. 

cThis category includes the following items: (1) Health or Family Life Education; (2) Library; (3) Physical Education; (4) Art, (5) Mu

band, or strings); and (6) Enrichment. 

dThis category includes the following items: (1) Arrival, Homeroom, Announcements; (2) Lunch; (3) Recess; and (4) Dismissal ActiviteThe number of teachers presented in this row is the number of teachers participating in the second year of the study. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level, p-value adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
101 

TABLE II.27 

TIME SPENT USING INFORMATIONAL TEXT AND TIME SPENT USING INTERVENTION IN COHORT 2 

FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Number of Minutes of Class Time That Teachers 

Reported Students Spent Using Informational Text 

in a Typical Week (Average)a 422.2 424.4 428.4 492.6 

(1.00) (1.00) (0.86) 

Number of Minutes of Class Time That Teachers 

Reported Students Spent Using Their Assigned 

Intervention in a Typical Week (Average) n.a. 191.9 131.7 162.1 

Number of Teachersb 54 53 46 31 

SOURCE: Students’ Use of Informational Text in Class Survey. 

NOTE: Time spent using informational text refers to all time periods (reading/language arts, science, social 

studies, test preparation, and any other class period). It includes time spent teaching comprehension 

strategies or vocabulary instruction related to text, as well as time students spend reading informational 

text, participating in whole-class discussions involving oral answers to teachers’ questions or 

small-group discussions of text, or completing worksheets or other written assignments about text. 

Time spent using their assigned intervention refers to the interventions being evaluated on this study. 

For example, for ReadAbout, this refers to the amount of time students who were assigned to 

ReadAbout spent using it in a typical week. 

a

Averages are shown for each group. Below the averages for the intervention groups, we show the p-value

corresponding to the test of whether each intervention group average differs from the control group average. This 

p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. 

b

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of teachers participating in the second year of the study. 

n.a. = not applicable. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level, p-value adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
TABLE II.28 

102 

TEACHER-REPORTED REDUCTION IN TIME SPENT ON CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES DUE TO USE OF TREATMENT CURRICULU

COHORT 2 FIFTH-GRADE CLASSROOMS 

Project CRISS ReadAbout 

Activity 

Among 

Teachers 

Engaging in 

Activity, 

Percentage 

Who Reported 

Reducing or 

Eliminating 

Time Spent on 

Activity to 

Make Room 

for 

Implementing 

CRISS 

Among 

Teachers 

Who 

Reported 

Reducing or 

Eliminating 

Time Spent 

on Activity, 

Average 

Reported 

Reduction in 

Minutes 

Spent on 

Activity 

Percentage of 

Teachers Who 

Reported 

Entirely 

Eliminating 

Activity to 

Make Room 

for 

Implementing 

CRISS 

Among 

Teachers 

Engaging in 

Activity, 

Percentage 

Who Reported 

Reducing or 

Eliminating 

Time Spent on 

Activity to 

Make Room 

for 

Implementing 

ReadAbout 

Among 

Teachers 

Who 

Reported 

Reducing or 

Eliminating 

Time Spent 

on Activity, 

Average 

Reported 

Reduction in 

Minutes 

Spent on 

Activity 

Percentage of 

Teachers Who 

Reported 

Entirely 

Eliminating 

Activity to 

Make Room 

for 

Implementing 

ReadAbout 

Among 

Teachers 

Engaging in 

Activity, 

Percentage 

Who Reported 

Reducing or 

Eliminating 

Time Spent on 

Activity to 

Make Room 

for 

Implementing 

Read for Real 

Reading Activities,a

Excluding Separate Instruction Using Intervention Curriculum 12.2 29.2 —b 17.9 20.0 8.8 21.1 

Other Academic Activitiesc —b 50.0 0.0 10.3 28.3 —b 17.1 

Enrichment Activitiesd 0.0 n.a. 0.0 0.0 n.a. 0.0 13.9 

Noncurricular Activitiese 0.0 n.a. 0.0 —b 5.0 0.0 —b 

Other 0.0 n.a. 0.0 —b 30.0 —b 0.0 

Number of Teachersf 53 46 31 

SOURCE: Teacher Time Allocation Survey. NOTE: Teachers in the three intervention groups were asked if they reduced time spent on specific activities in order to accommodate the reading interventio

study. The reduction in time spent on activities in this table may not correspond to the impacts on average proportion of time spent in activities repo

impacts were based on differences between the treatment and control groups in reported time spent engaged in activities, whereas the time reduction reon reports from teachers in the study’s intervention groups. We assumed that teachers who did not report spending time in a particular activity did not en

not reduce time spent on the activity. 

aThis category includes the following items: (1) Core (Basal) Reading Curriculum, (2) Supplemental Reading Curriculum (supplemental curricula other than the study in

(4) Vocabulary, (5) Fluency, (6) Reading Lesson Using Fiction Materials, (7) Reading Lesson Using Nonfiction Materials, and (8) Other Language Arts Activity. 

bValue suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. cThis category includes the following items: (1) Science Instruction (Textbooks), (2) Science Lab/Hands-on, (3) Social Studies/History, (4) News/Current Events, and (5dThis category includes the following items: (1) Health or Family Life Education; (2) Library; (3) Physical Education; (4) Art; (5) Music (general music, chorus, band, or eThis category includes the following items: (1) Arrival, Homeroom, Announcements; (2) Lunch; (3) Recess; and (4) Dismissal Activities. fThe number of teachers presented in this row is the number of teachers participating in the second year of the study. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
103 

spent on other reading activities by these teachers ranged from 20 minutes for ReadAbout 

teachers to 53 minutes for Read for Real teachers. 

Some teachers also reported reducing time spent on other non-reading academic activities 

such as science or social studies. Ten percent of ReadAbout teachers and 17 percent of Read for 

Real teachers reported reducing time spent on other academic activities to facilitate their use of 

the study interventions. Fourteen percent of Read for Real teachers reported reducing time spent 

on enrichment activities such as health, library, physical education, art, or music. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
III. COMPARING POST-TEST IMPACTS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND COHORTS 

OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS 

The analysis of impacts for the second cohort of fifth-grade students was designed to answer 

primary research questions about whether the reading comprehension interventions are more 

effective after schools and teachers have had a year of experience implementing them. The 

secondary questions focus on for whom and under what conditions the interventions are 

effective. Answers to the primary questions are expected to be of greatest interest to 

policymakers, since they indicate whether the interventions have the intended effect of 

improving reading comprehension after schools and teachers have had a year of experience with 

them. Addressing secondary questions can help interpret answers to the basic questions and 

guide future research on reading comprehension interventions. Selecting a set of primary 

questions on intervention effectiveness from the many questions of interest in this study is a way 

to limit proliferation of impact tests that could, if all were treated as core evaluation issues, just 

by chance yield some impacts that meet statistical standards for significance (see Schochet 2008 

for a detailed discussion of multiple testing). Focusing on these core questions reduces the 

number of impact tests, which reduces the loss in statistical precision that occurs when we apply 

corrections for the multiple comparisons that are being made in this study. 

105 

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF EXPERIENCE 

• Two primary research questions: 

- Are impacts larger after schools have had one year of experience with the 

curricula? 

- Are impacts larger after teachers have had one year of experience with the 

curricula? 

• Estimating experience effects: 

- The effect of school experience is estimated by interacting a cohort variable with 

treatment variables. 

- The effect of teacher experience is estimated by interacting a cohort variable with 

a teacher experience variable and treatment variables. 

- Both models account for clustering of students within schools, use covariate 

adjustment to improve statistical precision, adjust p-values for multiple 

comparisons, and use weights that account for random assignment probabilities 

and nonresponse. 

• Summary of findings: 

- No statistically significant impacts after schools have one year of experience. 

- One statistically significant impact after teachers have one year of experience: 

ReadAbout had a positive, statistically significant impact of 0.22 standard 

deviations on the social studies reading comprehension assessment. 

We hypothesize that impacts on student test scores could be larger after schools and teachers 

have experience with the supplemental curricula. When a school has previously used a 

supplemental curriculum, there could be more resources for teachers to draw on within the 
106 

school to aid in their implementation of the curriculum. For example, new teachers could benefit 

from the experience of their colleagues who had previously used the curriculum. When a teacher

has previously used a supplemental curriculum, she might be more effective at using it a second 

time. Thus, we examine whether impacts are larger after both schools and teachers have 

experience with the interventions. In the case of the school analysis, we look at impacts for all 

second-cohort students. In the case of the teacher analysis, we look at impacts only for students 

taught by teachers who were in the study schools in the first year (that is, those teachers who 

already used the curricula). 

This chapter first presents information about the methods used to estimate impacts in the 

second year of the study (Section A). Section B then examines the comparability of the treatment 

and control groups. Section C focuses on primary questions of intervention effectiveness and 

Sections D and E focus on the secondary questions referenced above. In particular, Section C 

presents impacts on student test scores, focusing on results for two questions: (1) Are impacts 

larger after schools have had one year of experience with the intervention? and (2) Are impacts 

larger after teachers have had one year of experience with the intervention? Section D presents 

impacts for subgroups of students, defined based on characteristics of the students and their 

teachers, and the conditions in their schools. In Section E, we examine whether (and, if so, how) 

impacts are related to differences in teachers’ classroom practices. 

A. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS 

The impacts presented in this chapter are based on our “benchmark” approach. This 

benchmark approach consists of the methods the study team deemed most appropriate for this 

study. In particular, the study team decided on an approach that involved accounting for 

clustering of students within schools (to account for the correlation between students in the same 

schools) and adjusting the results from statistical tests (p-values) for multiple comparisons 

(because there are multiple outcomes, multiple treatment groups being compared to a single 

control group, and two cohorts). Unadjusted results are presented in Appendix K. 

Two types of impacts are presented. First, impacts are presented for each intervention (for 

example, outcomes of students in ReadAbout schools are compared with outcomes of students in 

the control group). These impacts provide information on the effectiveness of each intervention, 

which may be helpful to readers considering implementing one of the interventions included in 

the study. The impact of an individual intervention on student outcomes is given by the 

regression-adjusted difference in outcomes between students in that intervention group and 

students in the control group. Second, impacts are presented for the combined treatment group, 

based on outcomes of students in all four intervention groups and outcomes of students in the 

control group. These impacts provide information on the effectiveness of reading comprehension 

interventions more broadly (not the specific impacts of any one intervention). Impacts for the 

combined treatment group are presented for two reasons. First, although the details of each 

intervention differ, the four interventions share a set of common strategies for improving reading 

comprehension. As a result, examining the interventions as a group is a reasonable approach to 

address the question of whether the use of these types of interventions, in general, improves 

comprehension. Second, examining the combined treatment group gives the study more power 

than looking at an individual treatment group. The impact of the curricula as a whole on student 

outcomes is given by the regression-adjusted difference in outcomes between students in the 
107 

 

combined treatment group and students in the control group. The p-values for all of these 

impacts are adjusted for multiple comparisons (p-values that are not adjusted for multiple 

comparisons are presented in Appendix K).50 

To increase the statistical precision of the study’s impact estimates, we estimated impact 

models that controlled for student, teacher, and school characteristics. These included students’ 

baseline GRADE and TOSCRF scores, ELL status, race, ethnicity, and an indicator for whether 

the student was overage for grade; teachers’ race, gender, and age; and school location. Our 

benchmark approach also included district fixed effects to further increase statistical precision 

and weights that account for nonresponse and the probability of random assignment (Appendix 

G also contains information on the benchmark approach just described). 

Estimating the effects of experience with the curricula involves assessing whether impacts 

of the curricula were larger after schools and teachers had one year of experience using the 

curricula. To estimate the effect of school experience, the study team used post-test data from the 

first and second cohorts of students to assess whether impacts on post-tests for the second cohort 

of students (whose schools all had one year of experience with the curricula) were larger than 

impacts on post-tests for the first cohort of students (whose schools, at that time, had no prior 

experience with the curricula). As summarized above (see text box), experience effects are 

estimated by interacting treatment variables with cohort indicator variables. In particular, the 

effect of school experience is estimated by interacting a cohort indicator variable with the 

treatment indicator variables. To determine whether the impact for the first cohort of students is 

statistically significantly different from the second cohort of students (which would be evidence 

of effects of school experience), we examine the statistical significance of the coefficients on 

these interaction variables. 

To estimate the effect of teacher experience, the study team focused on post-test data from 

first and second cohort students whose teachers were in the study in both the first and second 

years to assess whether impacts on post-tests for the second group of students were larger than 

impacts for the first group. The first cohort of students was exposed to the interventions at a time 

when the study teachers had no prior experience with the curricula. The second cohort of 

students whose teachers participated in both years of the study was taught by teachers with a year 

of experience using the curricula. The effect of teacher experience is estimated by interacting a 

cohort variable with a teacher experience variable (which is a variable indicating whether the 

50Our benchmark approach adjusts p-values within several domains of multiple tests (but not across domains). 

The two main impact tables in this chapter (Tables III.7 and III.8) each include eight domains. The first domain 

consists of 18 tests—the impact of each of three interventions (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) on 

each of three outcome scores (GRADE, science comprehension, and social studies comprehension) for two cohorts. 

The second domain consists of six tests—the effect of each of the three interventions on a composite outcome for 

two cohorts. The third domain consists of six tests—the effect of the combined treatment group on each of three 

outcome measures for two cohorts. The fourth domain consists of two tests—the effect of the combined treatment 

group on the composite outcome for two cohorts. The fifth domain consists of nine tests – the differences in effects 

between Cohorts 1 and 2 of three interventions on three outcomes. The sixth domain consist of three tests—the 

difference in effects between Cohorts 1 and 2 of each intervention on a composite outcome. The seventh domain 

consists of three tests—the difference in effects between Cohorts 1 and 2 of the combined treatment group on three 

outcomes. The eighth domain consists of one test—the difference in effects between Cohorts 1 and 2 of the 

combined treatment group on the composite outcome. 
108 

 

teacher was in the study both years) and the treatment variables. To determine whether the 

impacts for the first and second cohorts of students with teachers in the study both years are 

statistically significantly different (which would be evidence of effects of teacher experience), 

we examine the statistical significance of the coefficients on these interaction variables. 

As mentioned above, fewer Read for Real schools (11 of 16) agreed to continue 

participating in the study’s second year relative to other study groups (15 of 17 Project CRISS 

schools, 15 of 17 ReadAbout schools, and 20 of 21 control group schools agreed to continue 

participating in the second year). The higher rate of attrition for Read for Real schools makes the 

interpretation of estimates of the effect of teacher experience with Read for Real more difficult 

because the schools that decided not to participate in the second year might be systematically 

different in unobserved ways than the full set of schools that participated in the study’s first year. 

As described in Chapter I, this component of the second year of the study included three of 

the four interventions that had been included in the first year of the study. Project CRISS, 

ReadAbout, and Read for Real were included in the impact analyses for the fifth-grade 

component of the second year of the study, but Reading for Knowledge was not because 9 of the 

18 Reading for Knowledge schools elected not to continue implementing the intervention in the 

second year. 

B. TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS WERE SIMILAR AT BASELINE 

Random assignment of schools yielded treatment and control groups that were similar at 

baseline. As mentioned in Chapter I, the baseline period for Cohort 1 students was in fall 2006 

(the start of the first year of data collection) and the baseline period for Cohort 2 students was in 

fall 2007 (the start of the second year of data collection). We examined baseline differences for 

both cohorts of students. We conducted a total of 224 tests of differences in the baseline 

characteristics of students, teachers, and schools (including the core and supplemental reading 

curricula being used in study schools just prior to the start of the study) between each treatment 

group and the control group, and between the combined treatment group and the control group.51

We found five differences between treatment groups and the control group: (1) fewer teachers in 

the ReadAbout group were female, (2) teachers in the ReadAbout group were younger, 

(3) teachers in the combined treatment group were younger, (4) more second cohort students in 

the Read for Real group were over-age for grade, and (5) fewer second cohort students in the 

Read for Real group were classified as ELL (see Tables III.1 through III.6).52 The percentage of 

baseline differences that were statistically significant (2 percent) is less than what one would 

expect to occur by chance (5 percent). 

51To be conservative in this analysis, we did not adjust p-values for multiple comparisons. Not adjusting for 

multiple comparisons is conservative in this case because an adjustment for multiple comparisons would reduce the 

probability of finding differences between the treatment and control groups. 

52In addition to testing differences in school, teacher, and student characteristics, we tested whether the mean 

number of days between the baseline and follow-up tests differed between treatment and control groups. We did not 

find any statistically significant difference between the groups. 
 109 

TABLE III.1 

READING CURRICULA IN USE JUST BEFORE 2006–2007 SCHOOL YEAR 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read 

for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Percentage of Schools That Report Using the Following Core Curriculum:a

Textbook

Most Commonly Reported Curriculab 43 54 40 44 65 51 

Fantastic Voyage,c Houghton Mifflin 

Reading,d

 Scott Foresman Reading 

2000,e

 and Harcourt Trophiesf

(0.51) (0.87) (0.96) (0.19) (0.53) 

Other and None Reportedb 57 46 60 56 35 49 

(0.51) (0.87) (0.96) (0.19) (0.53) 

Basal Reader Series 

Most Commonly Reported Curriculab 40 71 47 50 58 56 

Fantastic Voyage,c Houghton Mifflin 

Reading,d

 Scott Foresman Reading 

2000,e

 and Harcourt Trophiesf

(0.07) (0.65) (0.56) (0.27) (0.19) 

Other and None Reportedb 60 29 53 50 42 44 

(0.07) (0.65) (0.56) (0.27) (0.19) 

Special Program 

Most Commonly Reported Curriculab 25 24 23 30 41 29 

Accelerated Readerg and Reading 

Masteryh

(0.92) (0.89) (0.72) (0.32) (0.72) 

Other 16 24 25 39 25 28 

(0.54) (0.49) (0.12) (0.49) (0.25) 

None Reported 59 53 52 31 35 43 

(0.70) (0.67) (0.10) (0.14) (0.20) 

Percentage of Schools That Report Using Supplemental Curricula in the Following Topic Areas:i

Comprehension and Fluencyb — j 36 35 32 23 31 

(0.09) (0.11) (0.14) (0.34) (0.10) 

Vocabulary 15 30 23 25 29 26 

(0.30) (0.56) (0.48) (0.34) (0.32) 

Other and None Reportedb 85 64 65 62 65 64 

(0.17) (0.19) (0.13) (0.19) (0.10) 

Number of Schoolsk 21 17 17 16 18 68 

SOURCE: Preliminary School Information Form. 

NOTE: The treatment and control group means presented in this table are weighted means. The weight is 

determined by random assignment probabilities, which were unequal when the number of schools in a 

district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical tests of differences in treatment and 

control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. These data were collected during MayJuly 2006. The survey question that is the basis for this table asked principals to report what resources 

their school uses for its fifth-grade reading curriculum. 
Table III.1 (continued) 

 

 110 

a

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

b

Categories collapsed to protect school confidentiality. 

c

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: http://www.pearsonschool.com/ 

index.cfm?locator=PSZ1B7. 

d

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: http://www.schooldirect.com. 

e

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: <http://www.pearsonschool.com. 

f

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: <https://jstore.harcourtschool.com. 

g

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: <http://www.renlearn.com/ar/>. 

h

Schools reported using this curriculum on the study’s Preliminary School Information Form. For additional 

information on this curriculum, please see the developer’s website: <http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/sra/ 

readingmastery.htm>. 

i

Columns may not sum to 100 percent because schools could report using more than one supplemental curriculum. 

j

Value suppressed to protect school confidentiality. 

k

The number of schools presented in this row is the number participating in the study. One of the study schools did 

not fill out a Preliminary School Information Form. 
 111 

TABLE III.2 

BASELINE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS, YEAR 1 

Baseline Characteristics 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Number of Students Enrolled in 

School 546.4 570.6 573.9 520.0 561.6 557.4 

(0.77) (0.68) (0.63) (0.83) (0.84) 

Number of Students Enrolled in Fifth 

Grade 74.0 87.3 76.1 71.4 80.3 78.7 

(0.28) (0.82) (0.77) (0.55) (0.50) 

Ethnicity/Race (Percentage) 

Hispanic 32 30 34 21 29 29 

(0.94) (0.81) (0.82) (0.76) (0.61) 

White 27 31 27 33 35 31 

(0.94) (0.81) (0.82) (0.76) (0.61) 

Black 38 37 36 43 34 37 

(0.94) (0.81) (0.82) (0.76) (0.61) 

Asian —a —a —a —a —a —a

Native American —a —a —a —a —a —a

Percentage of Students in School 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 70.8 75.2 65.6 71.9 63.0 69.0 

Lunch (0.48) (0.48) (0.89) (0.29) (0.75) 

Percentage of Students in School 

Classified as English Language 13.2 16.1 14.3 11.2 9.6 13.1 

Learners (0.65) (0.84) (0.68) (0.43) (0.98) 

Percentage of Schools That 

Participated in Reading First in the 25 49 27 31 29 34 

2005–2006 School Year (0.15) (0.86) (0.71) (0.80) (0.45) 

Percentage of Schools in the 

Following Locations: 

Urban 58 75 69 68 72 71 

(0.27) (0.47) (0.54) (0.37) (0.25) 

Urban fringe and rural areab 38 19 31 32 28 27 

(0.27) (0.47) (0.54) (0.37) (0.25) 

Percentage of Schools Eligible for 95 100 100 94 89 96 

Title I (.) (.) (0.86) (0.49) (0.91) 

Number of Schoolsc 21 17 17 16 18 68 

SOURCE: Preliminary School Information Form; 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD); School Information Form. 

NOTE: Baseline for schools in the first year of the study was fall 2006. The treatment and control group means presented 

in this table are weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which were 

unequal when the number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical tests 

of differences in treatment and control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. P-values could not be 

obtained when all schools in one of the groups exhibited a given characteristic. This is indicated by a (.). 

a

Value suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 
Table III.2 (continued) 

 

 112 

b

The urban fringe and rural area categories have been combined to protect respondent confidentiality. 

c

The number presented in this row is the number of schools participating in the first year of the study. The response rates for the 

calculations presented in the table vary from 67 to 100 percent, and the median response rate is 98 percent. The response rates

vary because some schools did not report information on some of the items of the Preliminary School Information Form and the 

School Information Form.
 113 

TABLE III.3 

BASELINE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS, 

SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN FIFTH-GRADE COMPONENT IN SECOND YEAR 

Baseline Characteristics 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Number of Students Enrolled in School 553.4 622.2 582.2 524.3 578.0 

(0.45) (0.69) (0.64) (0.69) 

Number of Students Enrolled in Fifth Grade 81.2 86.6 79.1 80.0 82.8 

(0.70) (0.85) (0.92) (0.88) 

Ethnicity/Race (Percentage) 

Hispanic 39 38 41 37 41 

(0.19) (0.23) (0.48) (0.38) 

White 25 30 24 25 27 

(0.19) (0.23) (0.48) (0.38) 

Black 30 25 26 37 26 

(0.19) (0.23) (0.48) (0.38) 

Asian 1 3 3 1 2 

(0.19) (0.23) (0.48) (0.38) 

Native American 2 1 1 1 1 

(0.19) (0.23) (0.48) (0.38) 

Percentage of Students in School Eligible for Free or 70.9 71.8 65.5 77.1 71.1 

Reduced-Price Lunch (0.84) (0.32) (0.17) (0.96) 

Percentage of Students in School Classified as English 14.7 16.5 16.0 12.1 16.0 

Language Learners (0.70) (0.74) (0.46) (0.71) 

Percentage of Schools That Participated in Reading 27 54 27 45 41 

First in the 2005–2006 School Year (0.13) (0.97) (0.34) (0.34) 

Percentage of Schools in the Following Locations: 

Urban 53 72 75 83 75 

(0.69) (0.20) (0.12) (0.38) 

Urban fringe 24 —a —a —a 16 

(0.38) 

Rural area 18 —a —a —a 7 

(0.38) 

Percentage of Schools Eligible for Title I 98 100 100 100 100 

(.) (.) (.) (.) 

Number of Schoolsb 20 15 15 11 41 

SOURCE: Preliminary School Information Form; 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD); School Information Form. 

NOTE: Baseline data for schools in the fifth-grade sample in Year 2 (all of whom were in the study in Year 1) are taken 

from fall 2006 (Year 1 of the study). The treatment and control group means presented in this table are weighted 

means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which were unequal when the number of 

schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical tests of differences in treatment 

and control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. P-values could not be obtained when all schools 

in one of the groups exhibited a given characteristic. This is indicated by a (.). 

a

Value suppressed to protect respondent confidentiality. 

b

The number presented in this row is the number of schools participating in the second year of the study. 
 114 

TABLE III.4 

BASELINE TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS, YEAR 1 

Baseline Characteristics 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Female (Percentage) 91 87 73* 87 83 83 

(0.58) (0.04) (0.59) (0.24) (0.19) 

Age (Average) 45.1 41.5 39.9* 40.1 41.7 40.8* 

(0.14) (0.04) (0.09) (0.18) (0.04) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 18 14 15 16 13 15 

(0.63) (0.79) (0.82) (0.66) (0.68) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 83 64 84 71 74 73 

(0.16) (0.90) (0.30) (0.46) (0.32) 

Black 17 34 16 24 23 24 

(0.16) (0.90) (0.30) (0.46) (0.32) 

Asian —a —a —a —a —a —a

Native American/Pacific 

Islander —a —a —a —a —a —a

Teachers with a Master’s Degree 47 44 45 37 47 43 

or Higher Degree (Percentage) (0.76) (0.89) (0.36) (0.99) (0.67) 

Years Teaching Experience 14.1 13.2 11.0 11.5 12.4 12.1 

(Average) (0.71) (0.12) (0.32) (0.39) (0.20) 

Number of Teachersb 59 52 50 54 53 209 

SOURCE: Teacher Survey. 

NOTE: Baseline for teachers in the first year of the study was fall 2006. The treatment and control group 

means presented in this table are weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment 

probabilities, which were unequal when the number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 

5. The p-values from statistical tests of differences in treatment and control group weighted means are 

presented in parentheses. These tests account for clustering of teachers within schools. 

a

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

b

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number of fifth-grade teachers participating in the first year of 

the study. The response rates for the calculations presented in the table vary from 83 to 97 percent, and the median 

response rate is 91 percent. The response rates vary because some teachers did not report information on some 

items from the Teacher Survey. 

*Statistically different from the control group at the .05 level. 
 115 

TABLE III.5 

BASELINE STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS, COHORT 1 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Female (Percentage) 48.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 50.0 

 (0.06) (0.12) (0.68) (0.85) (0.19) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.75 10.72 10.76 10.72 10.73 

 (0.43) (0.80) (0.36) (0.67) (0.48) 

Overage (Percentage)a 21.0 23.0 23.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 

 (0.60) (0.71) (0.44) (0.74) (0.52) 

Number of Days Absent in 12.1 10.5 11.4 14.3 11.3 11.8 

Prior School Year (Average) (0.64) (0.84) (0.65) (0.80) (0.91) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced- 60.0 59.0 61.0 58.0 58.0 59.0 

Price Lunch (Percentage) (0.92) (0.83) (0.76) (0.69) (0.87) 

Classified as English Language 27.0 26.0 31.0 32.0 25.0 28.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.93) (0.70) (0.72) (0.85) (0.82) 

Identified as Having a 10.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 

Disability (Percentage)b (0.69) (0.79) (0.60) (0.52) (0.77) 

GRADE Score (Average) 100.0 100.7 99.6 99.2 101.0 100.1 

 (0.65) (0.76) (0.56) (0.57) (0.93) 

TOSCRF Score (Average) 88.2 88.9 87.9 87.9 89.5 88.6 

 (0.53) (0.70) (0.68) (0.27) (0.65) 

Number of Studentsc 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 1 was fall 2006. The treatment and control group means presented in 

this table are weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which 

were unequal when the number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values

from statistical tests of differences in treatment and control group weighted means are presented in 

parentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. 

a

We considered a fifth grader in Cohort 1 to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 

2006. 

b

A student was identified as having a disability if any of the following categories were indicated on the Student 

Records Form: autism, deaf-blindness developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, learning 

disability, mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, and other disability not included in this list. 

c

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students participating in the study. The 

overall response rates for data items presented in the table vary from 69 to 96 percent, and the median response rate 

is 88 percent. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 
 116 

TABLE III.6 

BASELINE STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, BY TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL STATUS, COHORT 2 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Female (Percentage) 50.0 50.0 51.0 48.0 50.0 

 (0.78) (0.47) (0.73) (0.69) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.7 

 (0.22) (0.91) (0.05) (0.58) 

Overage (Percentage)a 19.0 24.0 19.0 25.0* 21.0 

 (0.15) (0.93) (0.04) (0.46) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior School Year 8.4 8.0 8.1 7.4 7.9 

(Average) (0.74) (0.82) (0.36) (0.68) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (Percentage) 75.0 70.0 72.0 76.0 73.0 

 (0.47) (0.65) (0.92) (0.68) 

Classified as English Language Learner (Percentage) 18.0 17.0 16.0 4.0* 16.0 

 (0.92) (0.81) (0.00) (0.66) 

Identified as Having a Disability (Percentage)b 11.0 10.0 10.0 16.0 11.0 

 (0.88) (0.90) (0.32) (0.80) 

GRADE Score (Average) 100. 4 101.6 100.5 100.2 100.7 

 (0.46) (0.91) (0.90) (0.76) 

TOSCRF Score (Average) 88.8 89.7 88.7 89.5 89.2 

 (0.56) (0.91) (0.70) (0.79) 

Number of Studentsc 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 2,948 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 2 was fall 2007. The treatment and control group means presented in this table are 

weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which were unequal when the 

number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical tests of differences in 

treatment and control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. These tests account for clustering of 

students within schools. 

a

We considered a fifth grader in Cohort 2 to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 2007. 

b

A student was identified as having a disability if any of the following categories were indicated on the Student Records Form: 

autism, deaf-blindness developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, learning disability, mental retardation,

orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, and 

other disability not included in this list. 

c

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 2 students participating in the study. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 
 117 

While we would expect some chance differences between the treatment and control groups 

given the large number of tests conducted, we investigated the difference in teacher age to 

address the potential concern that it might indicate some systematic difference between the 

treatment and control groups. Specifically, we wanted to explore whether this difference might 

have arisen because older teachers refused to remain in the study after discovering that they were 

assigned to the treatment group. We examined the percentage of teachers who agreed to 

participate in the study and whether the difference in that percentage across the arms of the study 

was statistically significant. We found that 94 percent of the fifth-grade teachers in study schools 

agreed to participate and the difference in this percentage across the four treatment groups and 

the control group was not statistically significant. We included each of the variables for which 

statistically significant differences were observed at baseline as covariates in our benchmark 

impact analyses. 

C. IMPACTS ON STUDENT TEST SCORES

Tables III.7 and III.8 present impact estimates for each intervention group separately as well 

as for the combined treatment group. For example, in the “Project CRISS” column, the estimates 

shown represent the regression-adjusted difference between scores of students in schools 

assigned to Project CRISS and scores of students assigned to the control group, while the 

“Combined Treatment Group” column shows the regression-adjusted difference between scores 

of students in schools assigned to any of the four intervention groups and scores of students 

assigned to the control group. When control group means are shown in report tables, they are the 

regression-adjusted control group means. 

All of the analyses presented in this report focus on the levels of the outcome variables. The 

study team did not focus on gains in the outcome variables from pre- to post-test (or from pretest to follow up) because pre-test versions of the assessments were not administered for two of 

the study’s three assessments administered at post-test and follow up. 

School Experience Findings. There was no evidence that impacts were larger after schools 

had one year of experience using the curricula. Overall, we did not find any statistically 

significant impacts of the interventions on any of the three student post-test outcomes for the 

second cohort of fifth-grade students, whose schools had one prior year of experience using the 

curricula (Table III.7). This lack of statistically significant impacts was found in comparisons of 

Cohort 2 students in each intervention group with the control group and comparisons of the 

combined treatment group with the control group for the full sample of Cohort 2 students. There 

were also no statistically significant differences between the intervention group impacts (not 

shown in table). These findings provide evidence indicating that impacts of the three 

interventions are no larger after schools have had one year of experience using the curricula. 

Teacher Experience Findings. Impacts for one of the curricula were statistically 

significantly larger after teachers had one year of experience using the curricula. We found one 

positive, statistically significant impact among students in the second cohort who were taught by 

teachers in the study for two years (Table III.8). (Impacts are reported as “effect sizes” to 

facilitate comparisons of impacts on different outcomes. The effect size is the impact divided by 

the standard deviation of the outcome for students in the control group. For example, an impact 

of 4 units on an outcome with a standard deviation of 20 would be reported as an effect size of 
 118 

TABLE III.7 

DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE COHORTS 1 AND 2 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 0.0 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.04 

Effect Size -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.05 

p-value 1 0.93 0.39 0.30 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 0.0 0 0.05 -0.02 0.02 

Effect Size 0 0.06 -0.02 0.02 

p-value 1 0.81 1 0.85 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.06 

Difference in Effect Size 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.38 0.66 0.21 

GRADE Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 100.6 -0.19 -0.64 -0.76 -0.60 

Effect Size -0.01 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 

p-value 1 0.99 0.92 0.65 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 100.8 -0.28 -0.08 -0.56 -0.26 

Effect Size -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 

p-value 1 1 1 0.99 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact -0.09 0.56 0.20 0.34 

Difference in Effect Size -0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.99 1 0.94 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.5 -1.36 -0.38 -2.28 -1.18 

Effect Size -0.05 -0.01 -0.08 -0.04 

p-value 1 1 0.75 0.81 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 500.0 0.09 4.63 0.47 2.21 

Effect Size 0 0.16 0.02 0.07 

p-value 1 0.05 1 0.46 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 1.45 5.01 2.75 3.39 

Difference in Effect Size 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.11 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.12 0.85 0.15 
TABLE III.7 (continued)

 119 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.7 0.31 -1.07 -2.71 -1.38 

Effect Size 0.01 -0.04 -0.10 -0.05 

p-value 1 1 0.85 0.84 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 501.7 0.58 1.66 -0.31 0.83 

Effect Size 0.02 0.06 -0.01 0.03 

p-value 1 1 1 0.99 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 0.27 2.73 2.41 2.21 

Difference in Effect Size 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.89 0.97 0.62 

Number of Students in Cohort 1b 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 3,792 

Number of Students in Cohort 2c 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 2,948 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: For each outcome, the numbers reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” are the average 

predicted outcomes for all students as if they were in the control group. The numbers reported in the 

remaining columns are, by row: (1) the impact, (2) the effect size, and (3) the p-value of the impact. 

The p-values presented in this table are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. Unadjusted p-values

are presented in Appendix K. For each outcome, the differences between cohort impacts are also 

reported. The social studies and science reading comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. 

Regression-adjusted impacts were calculated taking into account the clustering of students within 

schools. Variables in this model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and 

race, student English language learner status, school location, whether students were overage for grade, 

teacher sex, teacher age, teacher race, and district indicators. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

b

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students participating in the study. The 

proportion of students in each experimental condition with follow-up test scores is reported in Appendix G. 

c

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 2 students participating in the study. The 

proportion of students in each experimental condition with follow-up test scores is reported in Appendix G. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 
 120 

TABLE III.8 

DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, 

COMPARING FIFTH-GRADE COHORT 1 AND 2 STUDENTS WITH TEACHERS 

IN THE STUDY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 0.06 -0.06 -0.06 -0.09 -0.08 

Effect Size -0.07 -0.08 -0.10 -0.09 

p-value 0.87 0.70 0.38 0.15 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact -0.04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.05 

Effect Size 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.06 

p-value 1 0.39 0.99 0.41 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.13 

Difference in Effect Size 0.10 0.18 0.14 0.15 

p-value for the Difference 0.83 0.12 0.34 0.07 

GRADE Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 101.4 -1.07 -0.94 -1.48 -1.14 

Effect Size -0.08 -0.07 -0.11 -0.08 

p-value 0.90 0.92 0.56 0.23 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 100.1 0.16 0.24 -0.21 0.08 

Effect Size 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.01 

p-value 1 1 1 1 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 1.23 1.17 1.27 1.23 

Difference in Effect Size 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 

p-value for the Difference 0.97 0.93 0.86 0.49 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 502.6 -3.53 -1.78 -1.56 -2.09 

Effect Size -0.12 -0.06 -0.05 -0.07 

p-value 0.89 0.96 1 0.56 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 500.0 0.27 6.43* 3.03 3.25 

Effect Size 0.01 0.22 0.10 0.11 

p-value 1 0.01 0.88 0.29 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 3.80 8.21* 4.59 5.34 

Difference in Effect Size 0.13 0.28 0.15 0.18 

p-value for the Difference 0.99 0.01 0.84 0.12 
TABLE III.8 (continued)

 121 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 503.4 -0.07 -2.11 -3.04 -1.76 

Effect Size 0 -0.08 -0.11 -0.06 

p-value 1 1 0.72 0.84 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 501.7 2.22 2.91 1.87 2.35 

Effect Size 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.08 

p-value 0.98 0.98 1 0.69 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 2.29 5.02 4.91 4.10 

Difference in Effect Size 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.15 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.70 0.66 0.45 

Number of Students with Teachers in Study for Two Yearsb

Cohort 1 933 845 902 487 2,234 

Cohort 2 949 775 815 478 2,068 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: For each outcome, the numbers reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” are the average 

predicted outcomes for all students as if they were in the control group. The numbers reported in the 

remaining columns are, by row: (1) the impact, (2) the effect size, and (3) the p-value of the impact. 

The p-values presented in this table are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. For each outcome, the 

differences between cohort impacts are also reported. The social studies and science reading 

comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. Regression-adjusted impacts were calculated 

taking into account the clustering of students within schools. Variables in this model include pretest 

GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, 

school location, whether students were overage for grade, teacher sex, teacher age, teacher race, and 

district indicators. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

b

Counts reflect the number of students with nonmissing teacher data. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
 122 

 

0.20.) There was a positive, statistically significant impact of ReadAbout on the social studies 

reading comprehension post-test assessment (effect size: 0.22). To put this in perspective, the 

average gain in GRADE scores among students in the control group between pre-test and posttest was 0.44 standard deviations over a period of 245 calendar days.53 The full school year is 

about 270 calendar days. Assuming a constant rate of achievement gain over time, a 

0.22 standard deviation gain is equivalent to a gain of more than a third of a school year 

(0.22/(0.44*270/245) = 0.45). To provide additional context, for a student at the 50th percentile, 

an effect size of 0.10 represents about 4 percentile points, an effect size of 0.15 represents about 

6 percentile points, and an effect size of 0.20 represents about 8 percentile points. A metaanalysis by Rosenshine and Meister (1994) provides additional perspective; they found an 

average effect size of 0.32 across nine studies examining the impact of multiple reading 

comprehension strategy instruction on standardized test scores (this meta-analysis focused on 

reciprocal teaching, which involves the use of guided practice and dialogue between students and 

teachers to teach students about four comprehension strategies including question generation, 

summarization, prediction, and clarification). Another meta-analysis by Rosenshine, Meister, and 

Chapman (1996) found an average effect size of 0.36 across 13 studies examining the impact of 

question generation on standardized test scores. 

The impact of ReadAbout on the social studies reading comprehension post-test assessment 

for the second cohort of students was statistically significantly greater than the impact of 

ReadAbout on this outcome for the first cohort of students taught by the same teachers in the 

first year of the study (effect size difference: 0.28). ReadAbout’s impacts on the other post-test 

assessments (GRADE and science comprehension) were not statistically significant. There were 

also no statistically significant differences between the intervention group impacts (not shown in 

table). These findings provide some evidence indicating that impacts of ReadAbout (for one of 

three assessments) are statistically significantly larger after teachers have had one year of 

experience using the curriculum.54

Sensitivity Tests to Assess the Robustness of the Impact Findings. We assessed the 

robustness of these impacts through the following sensitivity tests (see Appendix G for more 

information): (1) excluding covariates, (2) using an alternative weighting approach, and 

(3) focusing only on students with both a pre- and a post-test. None of the findings presented 

above were sensitive to these changes in estimation approach. Specifically, all of the school 

experience findings remained statistically insignificant and the statistically significant impact of 

ReadAbout found in the teacher experience analysis remained statistically significant in each of 

these sensitivity analyses. 

53A similar comparison cannot be made using the ETS test because the ETS test was not administered at 

baseline. 

54The impact of ReadAbout on social studies scores after teachers had one year of experience with the 

curricula (effect size: 0.22) is similar to the impact observed after schools had one year of experience with the 

curricula (effect size: 0.16), but the latter impact was not statistically significant (p-value: .053). 
 123 

 

D. SIX OF 288 DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT SUBGROUP IMPACTS ARE 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

The study team also conducted a series of subgroup analyses to investigate secondary 

research questions related to whether impacts of the interventions might vary for second cohort 

students with different characteristics. Most of these subgroups are formed using characteristics 

observed at the beginning of each implementation year (fall 2006 for Cohort 1 and fall 2007 for 

Cohort 2), so the analyses preserve the properties of random assignment because the intervention 

could not have influenced these characteristics and thus there should be no systematic 

differences in unobserved characteristics of students in these subgroups between the treatment 

and control groups. Consequently, most of these findings allow for causal conclusions to be 

drawn about the impact of the interventions for these subgroups. The three exceptions are the 

subgroups defined by teachers’ self-reported past professional development, teaching efficacy, 

and school professional culture (all of which are based on data collected through the Teacher 

Survey, which was administered by the study team in August through November 2006, at the 

start of the study’s first year of data collection55). Both the number and composition of teachers 

in the treatment group who reported receiving past professional development and who reported a 

given level of teacher efficacy or school professional culture could have been affected by the 

product-specific training received in the summer before the first implementation year (in 

particular, teachers may have reported the training as professional development, and the training 

may have affected teachers’ responses to survey questions on their teaching efficacy and the 

professional culture in their schools). Because this potential shift in the size and composition of 

these subgroups affected only the treatment group but not the control group, analyses of these 

subgroups do not maintain the properties of random assignment and, therefore, do not allow for 

causal conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the interventions for these subgroups. 

 Our main approach to creating subgroups was to split the student sample into two groups of 

roughly equal size at the median level of each relevant characteristic for the study sample. For 

the subgroups based on baseline student test scores, we used a different approach, in which the 

two subgroups were created in five different ways: (1) by splitting the sample at the average 

score on the GRADE and TOSCRF tests for the norm sample, (2) by splitting the sample at the 

median score on the GRADE and TOSCRF tests for the study sample, (3) by comparing students 

in the top and bottom thirds of the GRADE and TOSCRF distributions, (4) by comparing 

students in the middle and bottom thirds of the GRADE and TOSCRF distributions, and (5) by 

comparing students in the top and middle thirds of the GRADE and TOSCRF distributions.56 For 

the subgroups based on teacher experience, we used an approach in which the two subgroups 

55Teacher surveys were not administered to teachers new to the study sample in fall 2007; therefore, new 

teachers were not included in these teacher subgroup analyses. 

56For both the GRADE and TOSCRF, the average score for the norm sample was 100. The median values for 

our study sample were 100.5 for the GRADE and 89 for the TOSCRF. 
 124 

 

were created in two ways: (1) by splitting the sample at the sample median (11 years) and (2) by 

splitting the sample at 5 years.57 Three types of student subgroups were created, as follows: 

1. Subgroups of students based on characteristics of the students themselves: fluency 

(baseline TOSCRF), comprehension (baseline GRADE), and English language 

learner (ELL) status. These subgroups were selected because they may be observed 

by teachers and could be used as the basis for targeting the interventions to specific 

students (for example, if it is found that students with below-average fluency levels 

respond better to a particular intervention). 

2. Subgroups of students based on characteristics of their teachers: teachers’ years of 

experience, hours of professional development in past 12 months, and self-reported 

efficacy. These subgroups were selected because they are characteristics that might be 

used by teachers and principals to target interventions to specific circumstances (for 

example, certain interventions might be more effective for teachers with belowaverage years of experience). 

3. Subgroups of students based on conditions of the schools they attend: professional 

culture in the school, concentration of students eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunch, and concentration of ELL students in the school. These subgroups were 

selected because they are conditions that might be used by principals to target 

interventions to specific settings (for example, certain interventions might be more 

effective in schools with above-average concentrations of English language learners). 

We report subgroup impacts based on the difference in impacts between subgroups among 

students in the second cohort (for example, the difference in impacts between ELL and non-ELL 

students in the second cohort). These differences are reported in Appendix Tables L.1-L.4 (with 

adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing) and L.9-L.12 (without adjustments for multiple 

hypothesis testing). Below, we focus on the findings that are statistically significant with 

adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing.58

There was no clear pattern to the six statistically significant subgroup differences observed 

in the second year (288 subgroup differences were examined). Greater impacts were observed of: 

57We examined a five-year teacher experience cut-point (in addition to using the sample median as a cut-point), 

because Ingersoll (2002) found that as many as 39 percent of teachers leave teaching altogether in the first five years 

of their careers. 

58These adjustments are conducted in four domains for each subgroup (we do not adjust for multiple 

comparisons between subgroups, only within subgroups). The first domain consists of nine tests—the test described 

above for each of three interventions (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real) on each of three outcome 

scores (GRADE, science comprehension, and social studies comprehension). The second domain consists of three 

tests—the test described above for each intervention on a composite outcome. The third domain consists of three 

tests—the test described above for the combined treatment group on each of three outcome measures. The fourth 

domain consists of one test— the test described above for the combined treatment group on the composite outcome. 
 125 

 

• Project CRISS on the composite test score for second-cohort students who scored in 

the top third of the pre-test GRADE distribution (effect size: 0.06) than those who 

scored in the middle third (effect size: -0.11) (Table L.1) 

• Read for Real on the composite test score for second-cohort students classified as 

ELL (effect size: 0.46) than for students not classified as ELL (effect size: -0.08) 

(Table L.1) 

• The combined treatment group on the composite test score for second-cohort students 

who were taught by teachers below the median of teacher-reported efficacy (effect 

size: 0.14) than for students taught by teachers above the median (effect size: -0.03) 

(Table L.1) 

• ReadAbout on the social studies reading comprehension test for second-cohort 

students who were in schools where the professional culture scale was below the 

median (effect size: 0.45) than for students in schools where the professional culture 

scale was above the median (effect size: 0.04) (Table L.3) 

• The combined treatment group on the social studies reading comprehension test for 

second-cohort students who were in schools where the professional culture scale was 

below the median (effect size: 0.27) than for students in schools where the 

professional culture scale was above the median (effect size: -0.01) (Table L.3) 

• Read for Real on the science reading comprehension test score for second-cohort 

students who were taught by teachers below the median of teacher-reported efficacy 

(effect size: 0.27) than for students who were taught by teachers above the median 

(effect size: -0.26) (Table L.4) 

E. NONE OF THE TEACHER PRACTICES SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES ARE 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

As a secondary analysis, we also investigated the relationship between intervention impacts 

and classroom practices (see Chapter II for more information on the three teacher practice scales 

the study team constructed). 59 We did this by conducting analyses of post-test scores for 

students in classrooms with different levels of observed teaching practices (as with the subgroup 

analyses described above, we split the sample at the median levels of teacher practices observed). 

These relationships must be interpreted cautiously because the interventions may have affected 

the extent to which treatment teachers engage in specific practices or the types of treatment 

teachers who choose to engage in those practices. As a result, treatment and control teachers who 

engage in teaching practices to the same degree may differ in unmeasurable ways.60 Therefore, 

59See Appendix Figures F.1A through F.3 for information on how the frequency of specific teacher practices 

corresponds to different scale scores. 

60If the intervention affected teacher practices, then that impact on teacher practices might explain the overall 

impact on student test scores. However, it is not possible to make causal statements about that relationship (causal 

statements would require a different study design than the one we used on this study, such as one in which teachers 

or schools were randomly assigned to implement the interventions to different degrees or amounts). 
 126 

these estimates of the relationship between intervention impacts and teacher practices cannot be 

interpreted as providing rigorous impact estimates and do not allow causal conclusions to be 

drawn about the impact of the interventions for these subgroups. 

We report teacher subgroup effects based on the same types of subgroup differences 

described in Section D, using the same approach to adjusting for multiple comparisons. The 

findings are reported in Appendix Tables L.1-L.4 and L.9-L.12. There were no statistically 

significant differences in these analyses. 
IV. COMPARING POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP IMPACTS FOR THE FIRST 

COHORT OF FIFTH-GRADE STUDENTS 

Similar to the analyses presented in Chapter III, the analysis of impacts of the interventions 

on follow-up test scores of the first cohort of students was designed to answer primary and 

secondary research questions. The primary research question focuses on whether the reading 

comprehension interventions had an impact on outcomes of first cohort students roughly one 

year after the implementation of the interventions ended. There are two main reasons for 

examining this research question: (1) it is possible that impacts of the interventions could emerge 

in the second year even after the intervention implementation has ended and (2) to examine 

whether the negative effects of Reading for Knowledge observed in the first year continued into 

the second year. To facilitate this examination, this analysis also investigates whether the 

impacts of the reading comprehension interventions in the second year of the study (when 

students from the first cohort were in sixth grade and no longer receiving the interventions) were 

different than the impacts in the first year of the study (when first cohort students were in fifth 

grade and receiving the interventions). The secondary research questions center on for whom and 

under what conditions the reading comprehension interventions have impacts one year after the 

end of implementation. Similar to the analysis of impacts for the second cohort of fifth-grade 

students presented in Chapter III, the answer to the primary question presented in this chapter is 

expected to be of most interest to policymakers since it indicates whether the interventions have 

an impact on the first cohort of students one year after the end of the implementation of the 

interventions. Answering secondary questions can be helpful in explaining the results from the 

primary analyses and shaping an agenda for future research on reading comprehension 

interventions. 

EXAMINING IMPACTS ONE YEAR AFTER THE END OF 

THE INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION 

• One primary research question: 

- Do the curricula have impacts on students one year after the end of the intervention 

implementation? 

• Estimating impacts one year after the end of the intervention implementation: 

- The impact of the interventions at follow up (one year after the end of the 

intervention implementation for first cohort students, which is the second study 

year) is estimated by regressing follow-up test scores on treatment variables and 

other covariates. 

- The model accounts for clustering of students within schools, uses covariate 

adjustment to improve statistical precision, adjusts p-values for multiple 

comparisons, and uses weights that account for random assignment probabilities 

and nonresponse. 

• Summary of findings: 

- No statistically significant impacts of the interventions at follow up for first cohort 

students. 

 127 
 128 

 

Information about the methods used to estimate impacts of the interventions one year after 

the end of the implementation of the interventions is presented in Section A. Section B examines 

the comparability of the experiences of treatment and control group students from the first cohort 

in the second year of the study. Section C addresses the primary questions on impacts of the 

interventions one year after the end of the intervention implementation and Sections D and E 

focus on the secondary questions described above. Specifically, Section C presents impacts on 

follow-up test scores for Cohort 1 students, as well as information on whether the follow-up 

impacts differ from post-test impacts (which were measured at the end of the first year of the 

study). Section D presents impacts for subgroups of sixth-grade students from the first cohort, 

based on the characteristics of the students and their teachers, and on the conditions in their 

schools. Section E investigates whether, and, if so, how, follow-up impacts are related to 

differences in teachers’ classroom practices. 

A. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING FOLLOW-UP IMPACTS 

Similar to the impacts presented in Chapter III, the impacts presented in this chapter are 

based on our “benchmark” approach. This approach involves (1) accounting for clustering of 

students within schools to account for the correlation between students in the same schools, 

(2) adjusting the results from statistical tests (p-values) for multiple comparisons since there are 

multiple outcomes, multiple treatment groups being compared to a single control group, and two 

assessments (post-test and follow up), (3) controlling for district fixed effects and student, 

teacher, and school characteristics to increase statistical precision of the impact estimates, and 

(4) including weights that account for nonresponse and the probability of random assignment. 

Chapter III and Appendix G also contain information on the benchmark approach just described. 

Our benchmark approach to estimate impacts of the interventions one year after the end of the 

intervention implementation, adjusts p-values within (not across) several domains of multiple 

tests.61

As in Chapter III, this chapter presents two types of impacts. First, impacts at follow up for 

each intervention are presented to provide information on the effects of each intervention one 

year after the end of the intervention implementation. Second, impacts at follow-up are presented 

for the combined treatment group, based on outcomes at follow up of students in all four 

intervention groups and outcomes of students in the control group. 

61The main impact table in this chapter (Table IV.3) includes eight domains. The first domain consists of 

24 tests—the impact of each of four interventions (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, Read for Real, and Reading for 

Knowledge) on each of three outcome scores (GRADE, science comprehension, and social studies comprehension) 

for two assessments (post-test and follow up). The second domain consists of eight tests—the effect of each of the 

four interventions on a composite outcome for two assessments. The third domain consists of six tests—the effect of 

the combined treatment group on each of three outcome measures for two assessments. The fourth domain consists 

of two tests—the effect of the combined treatment group on the composite outcome for two assessments. The fifth 

domain consists of 12 tests – the differences in effects between follow up and post-test of four interventions on three 

outcomes. The sixth domain consists of four tests—the difference in effects between follow up and post-test of each 

intervention on a composite outcome. The seventh domain consists of three tests—the difference in effects between 

follow up and post-test of the combined treatment group on three outcomes. The eighth domain consists of one 

test—the difference in effects between follow up and post-test of the combined treatment group on the composite 

outcome. 
 129 

 

All four interventions (including Reading for Knowledge) were included in the impact 

analyses for the sixth-grade component of the second year of the study, as this component 

involved tracking the first cohort of students through the end of the 2007-2008 school year and 

administering follow-up tests (unlike the fifth-grade component, this component did not require 

the interventions to be implemented by sixth-grade teachers). 

Students in the study’s sixth-grade component were classified according to their treatment 

status from the study’s first year. For example, students who attended Read for Real schools in 

the study’s first year are in the Read for Real group in the analyses for the study’s sixth-grade 

component, regardless of the school they attended in the study’s second year. Likewise, students 

who attended control schools in the study’s first year are in the control group for the analyses of 

the study’s sixth-grade component. This allows the study team to assess the longer-term 

effectiveness of the single year of curricula implementation provided to students in the first year 

of the study. 

In the second year of the study, the only way in which Cohort 1 sixth-grade students could 

have a teacher who received training in one of the study interventions is if one of the fifth-grade 

treatment group teachers who was trained in the first year of the study became a sixth-grade 

teacher. We found that this occurred to a very limited extent (affecting 1 percent of Cohort 1 

students). (In addition, just one of these students was both (1) in the control group in Year 1 and 

(2) enrolled in a classroom in sixth grade in which the teacher had been in a treatment group 

school in the first year.) Note that for these Cohort 1 sixth-grade students who were enrolled in a 

sixth-grade classroom with a teacher who had been trained in the use of one of the study 

interventions in the prior year, the interventions were not implemented in sixth grade and 

intervention materials were not provided to sixth-grade classrooms. 

B. EXPERIENCES OF THE FIRST COHORT OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL 

STUDENTS WERE SIMILAR DURING THE SECOND YEAR OF THE STUDY 

In the second year of the study, first cohort students attended sixth grade in 252 schools.62

This is a larger number of schools than the 89 that participated in the first study year, as many 

students went on to new schools when they entered sixth grade. Because of the way in which 

multiple elementary schools fed into a single middle school serving sixth-grade students, 

first-cohort students from the treatment group could attend school (and even be in the same 

class) with first-cohort students from the control group in sixth grade. 

In this chapter, we report on the experiences of sixth graders from the first cohort.63 In the 

first year of the study, one would not expect to observe any systematic differences in the 

experiences of first cohort students in the treatment and control groups due to random 

6258 of the 252 schools were schools that were randomly assigned to one of the interventions or to the control 

group at the beginning of the study. These 58 schools served sixth-grade students, so they are included in this 

component of the study. 

63Baseline characteristics of first cohort students and their teachers and schools in the study’s first year are 

discussed in Chapter III (see Tables III.1, III.2, III.4, and III.5). 
 130 

 

assignment. In the second year of the study, however, now that the treatment and control students 

from the first cohort have spread out across a larger number of schools to attend sixth grade and 

treatment students could attend school (and be in the same class) with control students during 

sixth grade, the experiences of those groups in sixth grade could by chance be different.64 For 

this reason, we conducted analyses specifically designed to assess the similarity of the 

experiences of the treatment and control groups in sixth grade. In particular, we examined school 

and teacher characteristics and conducted a total of 60 tests of differences in those characteristics 

between each treatment group and the control group, and between the combined treatment group 

and the control group.65 

We did not find any statistically significant differences in the characteristics of schools 

attended by Cohort 1 treatment and control students in the second year of the study (Table IV.1). 

In addition, we did not find any statistically significant differences in the characteristics of the 

teachers who taught Cohort 1 treatment and control students in the second year of the study 

(Table IV.2). This is an important finding, as it suggests that any observed differences between 

the treatment and control groups at follow up are the result of the implementation of the 

interventions in fifth grade, not due to differences in the experiences of students in the treatment 

and control groups in sixth grade. 

C. IMPACTS ON FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES OF SIXTH-GRADE COHORT 1 

STUDENTS 

Table IV.3 presents impact estimates at post-test (first year of study) and follow-up (second 

year of study) for each intervention group separately as well as for the combined treatment group 

of first cohort students. For example, in the “Follow up” panes and the “ReadAbout” column, the 

estimates shown represent the regression-adjusted difference between follow-up scores of 

students who, in the first year of the study, attended schools assigned to ReadAbout and followup scores of students who, in the first year of the study, attended schools assigned to the control 

group. The control group means shown in Table IV.3 are regression-adjusted control group 

means. 

64Recall that the design of the sixth-grade component of the study did not call for implementing the 

interventions in sixth grade. Rather, it called for following fifth-grade students for one additional year (through the 

end of sixth grade) to examine the longer-term effects of the interventions that were implemented in fifth grade. 

Therefore, there was no intention to attempt to control the schools in which students would enroll in sixth grade. 

Students attended the schools they would have attended in the absence of the study. Because students were not 

randomly assigned to schools in sixth grade, it was important to examine the experiences of treatment and control 

students in sixth grade to assess whether they were similar. If they were not similar, one might be concerned that the 

impacts on sixth-grade students reflect not only the intervention implementation in fifth grade but also differences in 

students’ experiences in sixth grade. If the experiences of the groups were similar in sixth grade (as was found in 

this study), one would have more confidence that the impacts on sixth-grade students reflect only the intervention 

implementation in fifth grade. 

65Similar to the baseline analysis presented in Chapter III, we did not adjust p-values for multiple comparisons 

to be conservative in the analysis of experiences of sixth graders in the second year of the study. Not adjusting for 

multiple comparisons is conservative in this case because an adjustment for multiple comparisons would reduce the 

probability of finding differences between treatment and control groups. 
 131 

TABLE IV.1 

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS IN YEAR 2, 

BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS OF STUDENTS 

School Characteristics 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Number of Students Enrolled in School 742.2 768.2 758.0 741.0 737.8 751.6 

(0.76) (0.83) (0.99) (0.95) (0.87) 

Number of Students Enrolled in Sixth Grade 179. 9 208.2 185.9 220.3 185.8 199.3 

(0.46) (0.87) (0.25) (0.86) (0.48) 

Ethnicity/Race (Percentage) 

Hispanic 39.0 33.0 40.0 32.0 37.0 36.0 

(0.84) (0.90) (0.75) (0.81) (0.80) 

White 27.0 34.0 27.0 34.0 31.0 31.0 

(0.84) (0.90) (0.75) (0.81) (0.80) 

Black 29.0 30.0 28.0 29.0 28.0 28.0 

(0.84) (0.90) (0.75) (0.81) (0.80) 

Asian 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

(0.84) (0.90) (0.75) (0.81) (0.80) 

Native American 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

(0.84) (0.90) (0.75) (0.81) (0.80) 

Percentage of Students in School Eligible for 

Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 65.3 68.5 64.4 63.6 65.4 65.5 

(0.46) (0.82) (0.72) (0.99) (0.96) 

Percentage of Schools in the Following 

Locations: 

Urban 58.0 71.0 65.0 52.0 71.0 65.0 

(0.21) (0.76) (0.25) (0.43) (0.78) 

Urban fringe 24.0 15.0 16.0 19.0 15.0 16.0 

(0.21) (0.76) (0.25) (0.43) (0.78) 

Rural area 15.0 6.0 11.0 29.0 6.0 13.0 

(0.21) (0.76) (0.25) (0.43) (0.78) 

Percentage of Schools Eligible for Title I 89.0 92.0 91.0 84.0 88.0 89.0 

(0.64) (0.84) (0.59) (0.90) (0.98) 

Number of Studentsa 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD). 

NOTE: The numbers reported in this table represent the experiences of the average student from each treatment and 

control group. Analyses were conducted at the student level because students from treatment and control groups 

can attend the same school in sixth grade. The treatment and control group means presented in this table are 

weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which were unequal when the 

number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical tests of differences in 

treatment and control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. These tests account for clustering of 

students within the schools in which students were enrolled at the time of random assignment. 

a

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students participating in the study. The overall response 

rates for data items presented in the table vary from 87 to 91 percent, and the median response rate is 89 percent. The number of 

schools is not reported by treatment and control groups because sixth-grade students from more than one group can attend the 

same school. 
 132 

TABLE IV.2 

CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS WHO TAUGHT SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS IN YEAR 2, 

BY TREATMENT AND CONTROL STATUS OF STUDENTS 

Teacher Characteristics 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Female (Percentage) 86.0 72.0 78.0 79.0 75.0 76.0 

(0.16) (0.35) (0.34) (0.23) (0.17) 

Age (Average) 41.0 45.4 43.8 42.3 44.1 43.8 

(0.10) (0.30) (0.61) (0.26) (0.21) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 17.0 10.0 11.0 20.0 7.0 12.0 

(0.47) (0.46) (0.80) (0.06) (0.41) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 70.0 77.0 60.0 64.0 71.0 69.0 

(0.39) (0.55) (0.09) (0.78) (0.98) 

Black 23.0 21.0 36.0 22.0 24.0 25.0 

(0.39) (0.55) (0.09) (0.78) (0.98) 

Asian 3.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 

(0.39) (0.55) (0.09) (0.78) (0.98) 

Native American/Pacific 

Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 

(0.39) (0.55) (0.09) (0.78) (0.98) 

Teachers with a Master’s Degree 

or Higher Degree (Percentage) 48.0 39.0 66.0 55.0 51.0 52.0 

(0.52) (0.20) (0.53) (0.80) (0.69) 

Years Teaching Experience 

(Average) 11.2 13.3 14.4 12.7 13.5 13.4 

(0.28) (0.10) (0.41) (0.16) (0.07) 

Number of Studentsa 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Teacher Survey administered to sixth-grade teachers in fall 2007. 

NOTE: The numbers reported in this table represent the experiences of the average student from each 

treatment and control group. Analyses were conducted at the student level because students from 

treatment and control groups can attend the same school in sixth grade (and, therefore, can have the 

same teachers in sixth grade). The treatment and control group means presented in this table are 

weighted means. The weight is determined by random assignment probabilities, which were unequal 

when the number of schools in a district was not evenly divisible by 5. The p-values from statistical 

tests of differences in treatment and control group weighted means are presented in parentheses. These 

tests account for clustering of students within the schools in which students were enrolled at the time 

of random assignment. 

a

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students participating in the study. The 

overall response rates for data items presented in the table vary from 51 to 62 percent, and the median response rate 

is 55 percent. The number of teachers is not reported by treatment and control groups because the same sixth-grade 

teacher can teach students from more than one group. 
 133 

TABLE IV.3 

DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT 

AND CONTROL GROUPS, COHORT 1 STUDENTS 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Composite Test Scorea

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.06 -0.11* -0.07* 

Effect Size -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 -0.13 -0.08 

p-value 1 0.99 0.81 0.04 0.03 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact -0.06 -0.01 0 0.06 0.05 0.02 

Effect Size -0.01 0 0.07 0.06 0.03 

p-value 1 1 0.63 0.77 0.61 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.17* 0.09* 

Difference in Effect Size 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.18 0.1 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.94 0.12 0.02 0.03 

GRADE Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 100.96 -0.44 -0.68 -0.74 -1.45 -1.01 

Effect Size -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.11 -0.07 

p-value 1 1 0.98 0.31 0.09 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 96.04 -0.75 -0.14 0.52 0.31 -0.04 

Effect Size -0.05 -0.01 0.04 0.02 0 

p-value 0.97 1 1 1 1 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact -0.31 0.54 1.25 1.76 0.97 

Difference in Effect Size -0.02 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.07 

p-value for the Difference 1 1 0.61 0.13 0.27 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.4 -0.67 -0.36 -1.38 -1.91 -1.36 

Effect Size -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 

p-value 1 1 1 0.96 0.70 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 498.15 1.42 -0.65 1.70 3.22 1.08 

Effect Size 0.05 -0.02 0.06 0.11 0.04 

p-value 1 1 1 0.92 0.93 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact 2.09 -0.29 3.08 5.13 2.44 

Difference in Effect Size 0.07 -0.01 0.10 0.17 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 0.99 1 0.83 0.41 0.37 
TABLE IV.3 (continued) 

 134 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.61 0.94 -0.42 -1.14 -5.43* -1.92 

Effect Size 0.03 -0.02 -0.04 -0.20 -0.07 

p-value 1 1 1 0.05 0.54 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 497.27 1.37 1.92 3.18 1.35 2.23 

Effect Size 0.04 0.06 0.1 0.04 0.07 

p-value 1 1 0.83 1 0.52 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact 0.43 2.33 4.31 6.78 4.15 

Difference in Effect Size 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.24 0.14 

p-value for the Difference 1 0.96 0.75 0.20 0.12 

Number of Cohort 1 Studentsb 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: For each outcome, the numbers reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” are the average 

predicted outcomes for all students as if they were in the control group. The numbers reported in the 

remaining columns are, by row: (1) the impact, (2) the effect size, and (3) the p-value of the impact. 

The p-values presented in this table are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. For each outcome, the 

differences between impacts for the post-test and follow up are also reported. The social studies and 

science reading comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. Regression-adjusted impacts 

were calculated taking into account the clustering of students within schools. Variables in this model 

include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

b

The number of students presented in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students participating in the study. The 

proportion of students in each experimental condition with post-test and follow-up test scores is reported in 

Appendix G. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
 135 

 

Follow-Up Impact Findings. There were no statistically significant impacts of the 

interventions on any of the three follow-up test score outcomes (GRADE, social studies reading 

comprehension assessment, and science reading comprehension assessment) for sixth-grade 

students from the first cohort. We did not find any statistically significant impacts in 

comparisons of follow-up test scores of students in each intervention group with follow-up test 

scores of students in the control group or in comparisons of test scores of students in the 

combined treatment group with test scores of the students in the control group. There were also 

no statistically significant differences between the intervention group follow-up impacts (not 

shown in table). In particular, the statistically significant negative impacts observed in the 

study’s first year (a negative impact of Reading for Knowledge on the post-test composite and 

science reading comprehension assessment scores, and statistically significant negative impact of 

the combined treatment group on the post-test composite scores) were not found in the second 

year of the study. These findings provide evidence that the four reading comprehension 

interventions did not have impacts on test scores outcomes of first cohort students one year after 

the end of the implementation of the interventions. 

Differences Between Post-Test and Follow-Up Impacts.66 We found two statistically 

significant differences in post-test and follow-up impacts for first cohort students. (Differences 

on post-test and follow-up impacts are reported in differences in effect sizes.) There were 

statistically significant differences between the follow-up and post-test impacts of Reading for 

Knowledge and the combined treatment group on the composite test score (effect size difference: 

0.18 for Reading for Knowledge and 0.10 for the combined treatment group). In both cases, the 

impacts at post-test were negative and statistically significant, and the follow-up impacts were 

positive but not statistically significant (p-values of 0.77 and 0.61, respectively). These findings 

provide some evidence that the impacts of Reading for Knowledge and the combined treatment 

changed over time. However, since the impacts of Reading for Knowledge and the combined 

treatment at follow up are not statistically significant, these findings cannot be interpreted as 

evidence of positive impacts of Reading for Knowledge and the combined treatment group in the 

second year of the study. 

Sensitivity Tests to Assess the Robustness of the Impact Findings. We assessed the 

robustness of these findings through the following sensitivity tests (see Tables H.1, H.2, and H.3 

in Appendix H for more information): (1) excluding covariates, (2) using an alternative 

weighting approach, (3) estimating impacts using a hierarchical linear model (HLM) approach, 

and (4) focusing only on students with both a pre- and post-test. None of the findings presented 

above were sensitive to these changes in estimation approach. Specifically, all of the follow-up 

impacts for first cohort students remained statistically insignificant in each of these sensitivity 

analyses. 

66Statistical tests for differences in impacts between post-test and follow up were conducted by estimating a 

stacked regression model that allowed for the calculation of cross-equation covariance terms. 
 136 

 

D. EIGHT OF 360 SUBGROUP ANALYSES YIELD STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

IMPACTS 

We conducted a series of subgroup analyses to examine secondary research questions 

related to whether the impacts of the interventions in the second year of the study (at follow up 

for the first cohort students) vary for sixth grade students with different characteristics. Since 

these subgroups are formed using characteristics of first cohort students observed at the 

beginning of the first implementation year (fall 2006), the interventions could not have 

influenced these student characteristics and thus there should be no systematic differences in 

unobserved characteristics in these subgroups between the treatment and control groups. 

Therefore, most of the subgroup analyses preserve the properties of random assignment and the 

findings allow for causal conclusions to be drawn about the impact of the interventions for these 

subgroups. As reported in Chapter III, the three exceptions are the subgroups defined by 

teachers’ self-reported past professional development, teaching efficacy, and school professional 

culture (all of which are based on data collected through the study’s first year Teacher Survey, 

which was administered by the study team in August through November 2006). The number and 

composition of teachers in the intervention groups who reported receiving past professional 

development and who reported a given level of teacher efficacy or school professional culture 

could have been affected by the product-specific training received in the summer before the first 

implementation year.67 Since that potential shift in the size and composition of those subgroups 

affected only the treatment group and not the control group, analyses of those subgroups do not

maintain the properties of random assignment and, thus, do not allow for causal conclusions to 

be drawn about the impact of the interventions for those subgroups. 

To create the subgroups analyzed in this chapter, we followed the same approach used in 

Chapter III, which was generally to split the student sample into two subgroups of roughly equal 

size at the median level of each relevant characteristic for the sample of first cohort students. See 

Chapter III for more information on the subgroups examined. 

Similar to the subgroup impacts reported in Chapter III, the subgroup impacts reported in 

this chapter are based on the difference in follow-up impacts between subgroups among first 

cohort students (for example, the difference in follow-up impacts between ELL and non-ELL 

first cohort students). These subgroup impacts are reported in Appendix L in Tables L.5-L.8 

(with adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing) and L.13-L.16 (without adjustments for 

multiple hypothesis testing). In the text that follows, our focus is on the findings that are 

statistically significant with adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing.68 

67In particular, as mentioned in Chapter III, teachers may have reported the training as professional 

development, and the training may have affected teachers’ responses to survey questions on their teaching efficacy 

and the professional culture in their schools. 

68These adjustments are conducted in four domains for each subgroup (we do not adjust for multiple 

comparisons between subgroups, only within subgroups). The first domain consists of 12 tests—the test for the 

difference described above for each of four interventions on each of three outcome scores (GRADE, science 

comprehension, and social studies comprehension). The second domain consists of four tests—the test for the 

difference described above for each intervention on a composite outcome. The third domain consists of three tests—

the test for the difference described above for the combined treatment group on each of three outcome measures. 
 137 

 

Subgroup Findings. Eight of the 360 subgroup differences at follow up were statistically 

significant (one would expect 18 significant findings [5 percent of 360] by chance). For first 

cohort students, we observed greater impacts of: 

1. Project CRISS on composite follow-up scores for students who scored in the bottom 

third of the pre-test TOSCRF distribution (effect size: 0.09) than for those who scored 

in the top third (effect size: -0.04) (Table L.5). 

2. Project CRISS on GRADE follow-up scores for students with pre-test TOSCRF 

scores below the national norm sample average (effect size: -0.02) than for those who 

scored above that average (effect size: -0.20) (Table L.6). 

3. Project CRISS on GRADE follow-up scores for students who scored in the bottom 

third of the pre-test TOSCRF distribution (effect size: 0.05) than for those who scored 

in the top third (effect size: -0.09) (Table L.6). 

4. ReadAbout on composite follow-up scores for students who scored in the middle 

third of the pre-test TOSCRF distribution (effect size: 0.09) than for those who scored 

in the bottom third (effect size: -0.09) (Table L.5). 

5. The combined treatment group on composite follow-up scores for students who 

scored in the bottom third of the pre-test GRADE distribution (effect size: 0.12) than 

for those who scored in the middle third (effect size: -0.04) (Table L.5). 

6. The combined treatment group on composite follow-up scores for students not 

classified as ELL (effect size: 0.05) than for those classified as ELL (effect size: 

-0.06) (Table L.5). 

7. The combined treatment group on GRADE follow-up scores for students with pre-test 

TOSCRF scores below the national norm sample average (effect size: 0.02) than for 

those who scored above that average (effect size: -0.08) (Table L.6). 

8. The combined treatment group on the social studies reading comprehension 

assessment follow-up scores for students who scored in the bottom third of the pretest GRADE distribution (effect size: 0.11) than for those who scored in the middle 

third (effect size: -0.06) (Table L.7). 

E. FIVE OF 60 TEACHER PRACTICES SUBGROUP DIFFERENCES ARE 

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT 

Similar to the analysis presented in Chapter III, we investigated the relationship between 

intervention impacts at follow up (one year after intervention implementation ended) for first 

cohort students and classroom practices69 during the year when the interventions were 

(continued)

The fourth domain consists of one test—the test for the difference described above for the combined treatment group 

on the composite outcome. 

69See Chapter II for more information on the three teacher practice scales the study team constructed. 
 138 

implemented with these students (that is, during the first year of the study when the first cohort 

students were in fifth grade). We did this by conducting analyses of follow-up test scores for first 

cohort students in classrooms with different levels of observed teaching practices (as with the 

subgroup analyses described above, we split the sample at the median levels of teacher practices 

observed). As described in Chapter III, these relationships must be interpreted cautiously because 

the research design did not randomly assign different levels of teacher practices to teachers. 

Therefore, estimates of the relationship between intervention impacts and teacher practices 

cannot be interpreted as providing rigorous impact estimates and do not allow causal conclusions 

to be drawn about the impact of the interventions for these subgroups. 

We report teacher subgroup impacts based on the same types of subgroup differences 

described in Section D, using the same approach to adjusting for multiple comparisons. The 

findings are reported in Appendix Tables L.5 through L.8 and L.13 through L.16. 

Five of 60 teacher practice subgroup differences at follow up were statistically significant 

(one would expect three significant findings [5 percent of 60] by chance). For first cohort 

students, we found greater impacts of: 

1. ReadAbout on composite follow-up scores for students whose classrooms in the first 

year of the study had Classroom Management Scale scores above the sample median 

(effect size: 0.07) than for students whose classrooms had scores below the sample 

median (effect size: -0.07) (Table L.5). 

2. The combined treatment group on composite follow-up scores for students whose 

classrooms in the first year of the study had Classroom Management Scale scores 

above the sample median (effect size: 0.07) than for students whose classrooms had 

scores below the sample median (effect size: -0.02) (Table L.5). 

3. ReadAbout on GRADE follow-up scores for students whose classrooms in the first 

year of the study had Classroom Management Scale scores above the sample median 

(effect size: 0.07) than for students whose classrooms had scores below the sample 

median (effect size: -0.09) (Table L.6). 

4. The combined treatment group on GRADE follow-up scores for students whose 

classrooms in the first year of the study had Classroom Management Scale scores 

above the sample median (effect size: 0.04) than for students whose classrooms had 

scores below the sample median (effect size: -0.05) (Table L.6). 

5. Reading for Knowledge on the social studies reading comprehension assessment 

follow-up scores for students whose classrooms in the study’s first year had 

Traditional Interaction Scale scores below the sample median (effect size: 0.26) than 

for students whose classrooms had scores above the sample median (effect size: 

-0.04) (Table L.7). 
139 

 

V. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTIVE AND NONEXPERIMENTAL ANALYSES 

This chapter presents additional descriptive and nonexperimental analyses that go beyond 

the study’s original research questions and, in most cases, are not related to the experimental 

design (the exception being Section E). These analyses do not answer questions of intervention 

effectiveness. Instead, they are correlational and descriptive analyses that are intended to inform 

future research and program development efforts. In summary, these analyses are not 

experimental and do not support causal conclusions. Therefore, findings from these analyses 

should be interpreted cautiously. 

The chapter begins with an examination of the descriptive data from the ERC classroom 

observations (Section A) and how they relate to student reading comprehension achievement 

(Section B). We then turn to an examination of how other teacher characteristics, specifically 

self-reported teaching efficacy and past professional development, relate to student test scores 

(Section C). In Section D we explore whether reading comprehension achievement is related to 

(1) the time teachers reported spending on reading activities with students on a given day and 

(2) the time teachers reported that students used informational text in a typical week. Finally, in 

Section E we examine correlations between intervention impacts for each block (or groups of 

schools within which random assignment was conducted) and the average characteristics of 

schools in those blocks. 

A. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON CLASSROOM PRACTICES 

The observational data gathered from the Expository Reading Comprehension (ERC) 

observation protocol (described above in Chapter II) allows us to provide a snapshot of the 

nature of reading comprehension instruction in 270 fifth-grade classrooms in the United States.70

The districts and schools participating in the study were not randomly selected from the universe 

of districts and schools in the United States. While the findings from the ERC data collected in 

study classrooms do not generalize statistically to the broader population of classrooms serving 

fifth-grade students in the United States, an examination of this data can still contribute to the 

literature addressing the extent to which teachers provide instruction to students on how to make 

sense of text. Durkin (1978) noted that teachers tended to ask students questions and tell them 

whether their answers were right or wrong, but provided little guidance in how to think through 

solutions to problems and answers to questions. A more recent study by Connor et al. (2004) of 

third-grade teachers indicated that, on average, only about a minute of the daily language arts 

instructional time was spent on explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies. 

As described above in Chapter II, the ERC observation form enabled the study team to tally 

the number of times instructional practices were seen in treatment and control classrooms during 

70270 classrooms were included the first year of the study and 190 classrooms were included in the second year 

of the study. The data discussed in this chapter are based on the 270 and 190 classrooms in Years 1 and 2, 

respectively. 
140 

the study’s classroom observations (recall that these non-curricula-specific observations were 

conducted in both treatment and control classrooms and were designed to examine the extent to 

which specific teaching practices related to vocabulary and comprehension instruction were 

observed). Two types of information are presented in the tables in this section: (1) the number of 

times practices were observed in Years 1 and 2 and (2) differences in the number of times 

practices were observed in the two years. 

Recall that observations included any time during the day that students and teachers worked 

with informational text. This could include parts of the reading/language arts lesson, history 

lesson, science lesson, and, for the intervention classrooms, the time during the day devoted to 

the intervention. Therefore, the amount of time devoted to instruction using informational text 

varied across classrooms. Thus, for Part I items (see Table V.1a) related to vocabulary and 

comprehension instruction, the frequency with which instructional practices were observed was 

constructed in two ways: (1) based on sums of activities across all observation intervals during 

the course of an entire school day and (2) based on averages of activities across the observation 

intervals. These two methods of constructing frequencies provide two important pictures of 

instructional practices: the total number of times students are exposed to a particular practice in a 

given day and the average number of times they are exposed to a particular practice in a 

10-minute time period. 

In the text that follows, we focus on describing the most frequently implemented 

instructional practices, as well as describing instances when the Year 1 and Year 2 teacher 

practices were statistically significantly different. We examine differences between the two years 

to assess whether teaching practices of the full set of teachers participating in the study changed 

between the years. Because data from Year 1 and Year 2 are not based on the same set of 

teachers, the observed differences could reflect compositional changes as well as changes in 

teacher practices. The comparisons are still useful, however, for understanding whether the 

overall teaching practices experienced by Cohort 1 students differed from the overall teaching 

practices experienced by Cohort 2 students. 

The most frequently observed reading comprehension instructional practice (see first pane of 

Table V.1a), based on the sum of activities across all observation intervals in a school day, was 

students practicing using reading comprehension strategies (on average, 15.34 total times during 

the observations conducted in Year 2). The least frequently observed reading comprehension 

instructional practices, based on the total number of times the practices were observed during an 

entire school day, were those involving teacher modeling (which ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 times 

during the observations conducted in Year 2). Three items were observed significantly more 

often in Year 2 relative to Year 1: 

1. Teacher explains, reviews, and provides examples and elaborations of activating prior 

knowledge and/or previewing text before reading (6.5 times in Year 2 vs. 4.6 times in 

Year 1, p-value = .03) 

2. Teacher explains, reviews, and provides examples and elaborations when providing 

explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students about text structure 

(2.9 times in Year 1 vs. 1.8 times in Year 2, p-value =.03) 
141 

TABLE V.1a 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTR

Total Number of Times Observeda Average Numbe

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value Year 1 Year 2 

Part I, Comprehensionc

Activates prior knowledge and/or previews text before reading 

Teacher models 0.06 0.04 -0.02 0.40 0.01 0.00 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and 

elaborations 4.55 6.45 1.90* 0.03 0.61 0.71 

Students practice 7.95 9.86 1.91 0.12 1.07 1.06 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students about text structure 

Teacher models 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.59 0.00 0.00 Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and 

elaborations 1.84 2.90 1.06* 0.03 0.24 0.32 

Students practice 2.79 4.69 1.90* 0.02 0.34 0.50 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to use comprehension strategies 

Teacher models 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.42 0.01 0.01 Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and 

elaborations 8.20 9.01 0.81 0.48 1.22 1.03 

Students practice 12.66 15.34 2.68 0.11 1.75 1.78 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to generate questions 

Teacher models 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and 

elaborations 1.93 2.68 0.74 0.18 0.24 0.27 

Students practice 3.44 4.64 1.20 0.20 0.43 0.47 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches text features to interpret text 

Teacher models 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and 

elaborations 1.41 1.63 0.21 0.49 0.19 0.17 

Students practice 1.83 2.17 0.34 0.44 0.24 0.22 

Teacher asks students to justify their responses 1.89 2.55 0.67 0.09 0.24 0.27 
TABLE V.1a (continued) 

142 

Total Number of Times Observeda Average Numbe

Year 1 Year 2 Difference p-value Year 1 Year 2 

Teacher asks questions based on material in the text that are beyond the literal level 8.10 7.85 -0.26 0.79 0.96 0.90 Teacher elaborates, clarifies, or links concepts during and after text reading 10.44 10.04 -0.40 0.72 1.29 1.17 

Part I, Vocabularyc

Teacher provides an explanation and/or a definition or asks a student to read a definition 5.35 5.05 -0.30 0.60 0.71 0.54 

Teacher provides examples, contrasting examples, multiple meanings, immediate elaborations to students’ responses 6.90 7.26 0.36 0.66 0.87 0.80 

Teacher uses visuals/pictures, gestures related to word meaning, facial expressions, or demonstrations to discuss/demonstrate word meanings 1.91 1.93 0.03 0.95 0.23 0.21 

Teacher teaches word-learning strategies using context clues, word parts, root meaning 0.66 0.80 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.09 

Students do or are asked to do something that requires knowledge of words 11.23 13.41 2.18 0.13 1.39 1.47 

Students are given an opportunity to apply word-learning strategies using context clues, word parts, and root meaning 0.77 0.95 0.18 0.47 0.12 0.10 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. aThe number reported is the total number of times each behavior was observed across the full day. bThe number reported is the average number of times each practice was observed across all 10-minute observation intervals. cFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded tallies for the number of times each behavior was observed. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
143

3. Students practice working with text structure (4.7 times in Year 2 vs. 2.8 times in 

Year 1, p-value =.02) 

There were no statistically significant differences between Years 1 and 2 for the other total 

frequencies with which reading comprehension items were observed, or for frequencies based on 

averages. 

The most frequently observed vocabulary item (see second pane of Table V.1a) was students 

doing—or being asked to do—something that requires knowledge of words such as providing a 

definition or an example, or using the word in a sentence (13.4 total times during the 

observations conducted in Year 2). There were no statistically significant differences between 

Years 1 and 2 with one exception—the average frequency with which teachers were observed 

providing an explanation and/or definition or asking students to read a definition was statistically 

significantly lower in Year 2 than in Year 1 (0.71 times in Year 1 vs. 0.54 times in Year 2, 

p-value = .02). 

There were no statistically significant differences between Years 1 and 2 in the type of 

grouping arrangements observed in classrooms. In both years, teachers were observed working 

with the whole class most frequently (in 82 and 85 percent of the 10-minute intervals observed in 

Years 1 and 2, respectively) (Table V.1b). Teachers were seen working with small groups of 

three to six students in 21 and 16 percent of the 10-minute intervals observed in Years 1 and 2, 

respectively. 

Teachers were observed most frequently implementing supported oral reading of connected 

text (observed in 39 and 46 percent of the 10-minute intervals observed in Years 1 and 2, 

respectively) (Table V.1b). Teachers used independent or buddy oral reading in 32 and 

21 percent of the 10-minute intervals observed in Years 1 and 2, respectively. The difference 

between the years was statistically significant (p-value = .00). We also observed a statistically 

significant difference in the extent to which teachers read aloud with students following along 

silently (observed in 16 and 24 percent of the 10-minute intervals observed in Years 1 and 2, 

respectively, p-value = .01). 

For Part II items, which were recorded once per observation, the study team used the 

average value recorded across observations, to provide an overall picture for the day’s 

instruction. The first nine items (Table V.1c) were yes/no items, and the remaining items (Table 

V.1d) used Likert scales. 

In Years 1 and 2, teachers were most frequently observed providing opportunities for most 

students to participate actively during teacher-led instruction (87 percent in Year 1 and 

82 percent in Year 2) and pacing instruction so that the length of the comprehension or 

vocabulary activities was appropriate for the age group (88 percent in Year 1 and 82 percent in 

Year 2) (Table V.1c). There was a statistically significant difference between the two years for 

the latter item (p-value = .03). Teachers were observed giving inaccurate and/or confusing 

explanations or feedback in 3 percent of observations in Year 1 and 8 percent in Year 2, a 

difference that was statistically significant (p-value = .01). There was also a statistically 

significant difference between the two years in the percentage of teachers observed keeping 
144 

TABLE V.1b 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTR

Average Number of Tim

Year 1 Year 2 D

Part I, Grouping Arrangements and Text Readingb

Teacher is working with: 

Whole class (>75% of class) 0.82 0.85 

Large group (> 6 students, < 75% of class) 0.02 0.02 

Small groups (3-6 students) 0.21 0.16 

Pairs 0.09 0.08 

An individual 0.04 0.05 

No direct student contact 0.01 0.01 

Text reading (applies to reading-connected text) 

Supported oral reading (includes choral and round-robin reading) 0.39 0.46 

Independent silent reading 0.25 0.22 

Independent or buddy oral reading 0.32 0.21 

Teacher reads aloud 0.17 0.12 

Teacher reads aloud with students following along silently 0.16 0.24 

Text not present 0.05 0.07 

Text present but not being read 0.23 0.25 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. aThe number reported is the average number of times each practice was observed across all 10-minute observation intervals. bFor items in this pane of the table, observers selected all items that they observed (more than one category could be selected). 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
145 

TABLE V.1c 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTR

Average Number of Tim

Year 1 Year 2 D

Part II, Instruction Effectivenessb

Gave inaccurate and/or confusing explanations or feedback 0.03 0.08 Missed opportunity to correct or address error 0.05 0.09 

Provided opportunities for most students to participate actively during teacher-led instruction 0.87 0.82 

Paced instruction so that the length of the comprehension or vocabulary activities was appropriate for this age group 0.88 0.82 Taught using outlining and/or note taking 0.32 0.26 Used graphic organizers 0.33 0.29 Kept students thinking for two or more seconds before calling on a student to respond to a complex question 0.62 0.49 Gave independent/pairs/small-group practice in answering comprehension questions or applying 

comprehension strategy(ies) with expected written product 0.56 0.47 

Used writing activities in response to reading (does not include fill-in-the-blank or one-word answers) 0.39 0.34 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. aThe number reported is the average number of times each practice was observed across all observations. bFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded “Yes” or “No” for each item. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
146 

TABLE V.1d 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTR

Average Number of Tim

Year 1 Year 2 D

Part II, Teachers’ Management/Responsiveness to Studentsb 

Teacher maximized the amount of time available for instruction 3.25 3.26 

Teacher managed student behavior effectively in order to avoid disruptions and provide productive learning environments 3.40 3.39 

Teacher redirected discussion if a student response was leading the group off topic/focus 3.30 3.12 

Part II, Student Engagementc 

Student engagement during the first half of the observation session 2.64 2.72 Student engagement during the remainder of the observation session 2.58 2.61 SOURCE: Classroom observations. aThe number reported is the average value recorded across all observations. bFor items in this pane of the table, observers record a “1” for minimal/poor, “2” for fair, “3” for good, or “4” for excellent.cFor items in this pane of the table, observers could record a “1” for few engaged, “2” for many engaged, or “3” for most engaged. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
147

 

students thinking for two or more seconds before calling on a student to respond to a complex 

question (62 percent in Year 1 vs. 49 percent in Year 2, p-value = .01). 

The items from Part II of the ERC on teachers’ management of the classroom and 

responsiveness to students were recorded using a 1 to 4 Likert scale, with 1 meaning 

“Minimal/Poor” and 4 meaning “Excellent.” All items in this section were rated above 3 for 

Years 1 and 2, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two years 

(Table V.1d). The items from Part II of the ERC on student engagement were recorded using a 

1 to 3 Likert scale, with 1 meaning “Few Engaged,” 2 meaning “Many Engaged,” and 3 meaning 

“Most Engaged.” All items in this section were rated above 2 for Years 1 and 2, and there were 

no statistically significant differences between the two years. 

B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASSROOM PRACTICES AND TEST SCORES 

Studies using observational data and correlational analysis have indicated a positive and 

statistically significant relationship between certain interactive teaching practices related to 

reading comprehension and student reading comprehension outcomes. For example, Connor et 

al. (2004) observed 43 third-grade classrooms and found that children achieved greater reading 

comprehension growth when more time was spent in explicit, interactive instruction in reading 

comprehension strategies. Stallings (1975), who observed 171 third-grade teachers for three days 

as part of the Follow Through study, found that interactive teaching practices (such as presenting 

information, asking students questions, and providing immediate corrective feedback) were 

associated with higher reading comprehension and vocabulary scores. And Denham and 

Lieberman (1980), who observed close to 300 second- and fifth-grade teachers extensively as 

part of the six-year Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, found that substantive interactive 

instruction (the combination of teacher explanations, questioning of students, and provision of 

feedback) was associated with significantly high levels of academic engagement (r = .45) 

(reported in Rosenshine 1980, p. 121), which in turn was significantly positively associated with 

student comprehension and vocabulary performance (Borg 1980, p. 52). 

Given the positive relationship between interactive teaching practices in reading and student 

outcomes that has been reported in prior observational research, we thought it was important to 

examine the relationship between the ERC observational data and student reading outcomes in 

this study.71 The ERC classroom observations (as described in Chapters I and II) were designed 

to gather information on the number of times treatment and control group teachers engaged in a 

set of general, non-intervention-specific teaching practices related to reading comprehension and 

vocabulary instruction. 

In this section we examine whether these practices as measured by the ERC are associated 

with student reading comprehension outcomes.72 We first examine whether the three ERC scales 

71The ERC differs from some of the observational measures developed in the 1970s and 1980s in that it also 

includes items that examine the extent to which teachers think aloud or model use of comprehension strategies. 

72 Although the ERC was used to observe classrooms multiple times during the day, classrooms were only 

observed for a single day, which may reduce the reliability of the teacher practice scales based on the ERC data 
148

 

(Traditional Interaction, Reading Strategy Guidance, and Classroom Management and Student 

Engagement) are associated with students’ post-test scores, both with and without regression 

adjustment for students’ pre-test scores and other characteristics of teachers and students.73

Second, we examine which of the individual ERC items are associated with student test scores. 

Finally, we examine how the association between ERC items and student test scores relates to 

the frequency with which those practices are observed. 

Correlations between the ERC scales and reading comprehension post-tests are presented in 

Table V.2. The numbers in this table are the standardized coefficients on each scale in a 

regression of a post-test on the scale and other covariates. Below each regression coefficient is a 

p-value. The regression coefficients in the first column come from a regression model without 

any other covariates. The second column adds pre-test scores from the GRADE and TOSCRF as 

covariates. The third column adds student ethnicity and race, student English language learner 

status, school location, and teacher race. Finally, the fourth column adds the remaining ERC 

scales (for example, it reports the effect of the Traditional Interaction scale adjusted for the other 

two scales). Adjusting for the other scales shows the correlation between each scale and test 

scores, holding the other scales constant. For example, this analysis indicates how test scores are 

expected to change when the Classroom Management scale is increased while holding both 

Reading Strategy Guidance and Traditional Interaction scales constant (for example, the 

classroom management scale has a statistically significant correlation of 0.04 with the GRADE 

when holding the Reading Strategy Guidance and Traditional Interaction scales constant).74 All 

variables in these regressions are standardized.75

This table shows that the Classroom Management scale has the most consistently positive 

and statistically significant association with post-test scores. For three of the four outcomes 

presented in this table, the relationship between the Classroom Management scale and the posttest is positive and statistically significant even after adjusting for baseline covariates and the 

(continued)

(relative to observations conducted over multiple days). When the teacher practice scales based on a single day of 

observations are used in the correlational analyses in this chapter, the correlations may be attenuated. 

73Treatment and control students from Cohorts 1 and 2 are included in the analyses presented in Sections B 

through D of this chapter. The analyses focus on post-test (end of fifth grade) data that were collected in spring 2007 

for Cohort 1 and spring 2008 for Cohort 2 (this was after treatment students were exposed to one year of 

intervention implementation). Note that teachers of Cohort 1 treatment students were implementing the study 

interventions for the first time, while teachers of Cohort 2 treatment students had one year of experience using the 

interventions as part of the first year of the study. 

74As shown in Table II.18, several items are common to both the Traditional Interaction and the Reading 

Strategy Guidance scales (there is no overlap between the Classroom Management scale and either of the other two 

scales). This overlap in items could lead to a high correlation between the Reading Strategy Guidance and 

Traditional Interaction scales, which could confound our findings reported in the last column of Table V.2. To 

investigate this issue, we also estimated these regressions excluding the Traditional Interaction scale. We found that 

the sign and statistical significance of the correlations reported in the last column of Table V.2 do not change when 

the Traditional Interaction scale is excluded. 

75To standardize each variable used in the regressions, we subtracted the mean from the variable and then 

divided by its standard deviation. 
149

TABLE V.2 

REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION (ERC) 

SCALES AND STUDENT POST-TEST SCORES 

Covariate Adjustment 

None Pretest 

Pretest and Other 

Covariates 

Pretest, Other 

Covariates, and 

ERC Scales 

GRADE Score

Traditional Interaction 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 

(0.56) (0.67) (0.45) (0.45) 

Reading Strategy Guidance 0.05 0.03* 0.02* 0.01 

(0.06) (0.03) (0.01) (0.43) 

Classroom Management 0.09* 0.05* 0.04* 0.04* 

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Traditional Interaction 0.01 0.01 -0.02 -0.01 

(0.58) (0.72) (0.29) (0.58) 

Reading Strategy Guidance 0.05* 0.04* 0.03 0.02 

(0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.39) 

Classroom Management 0.07* 0.04* 0.02 0.02 

(0.00) (0.03) (0.19) (0.18) 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Traditional Interaction 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 

(0.11) (0.07) (0.64) (0.65) 

Reading Strategy Guidance 0.07* 0.05* 0.04* 0.03 

(0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.25) 

Classroom Management 0.13* 0.10* 0.08* 0.07* 

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

Composite Test Scorea

Traditional Interaction 0.02 0.02 -0.01 -0.004 

(0.35) (0.33) (0.55) (0.72) 

Reading Strategy Guidance 0.06* 0.04* 0.03* 0.02 

(0.04) (0.01) (0.00) (0.18) 

Classroom Management 0.11* 0.07* 0.05* 0.05* 

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

SOURCE: Classroom observations and reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients and p-values (in parentheses) are reported for each ERC scale. 

The p-values presented in this table are adjusted for clustering of students within schools but not for 

multiple-hypotheses testing. The outcome for each regression is indicated by the pane labels (in gray 

shading). Other covariates in the regression models vary by column. The first column includes no 

additional covariates (so it is simply regressing test scores on each of the ERC scales). The second 

column includes the GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered in the fall of each cohort year. In 

addition to those two tests, the third column also includes student ethnicity and race, student English 

language learner status, school location, and teacher race. In addition to those covariates, the fourth 

column adds the remaining ERC scales (for example, it reports the effect of the traditional interaction 

scale adjusted for the other two scales). 
TABLE V.2 (continued) 

 

150

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. 
151

other scales (see the last column in Table V.2). No other scale has a statistically significant 

association with post-test scores after adjusting for that set of covariates. The Reading Strategy 

Guidance scale does have a positive and statistically significant association with three out of four 

post-test scores when adjusting for baseline covariates but not the other scales (see the third 

column in Table V.2). The Traditional Interaction scale was not statistically significantly related 

to any of the four test scores. 

The association between individual ERC instrument items and student test scores is shown 

in Table V.3. The instrument items that have the most statistically significant correlations with 

test scores after adjusting for baseline covariates are: 

• The three items under the heading “Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches 

students how to use comprehension strategies” (8 of 12 correlations are statistically 

significant, all of which show that the more teachers were observed implementing 

these practices, the higher were student test scores) 

• The three items under the heading “Part II, Teachers’ Management/Responsiveness to 

Students” (10 of 12 correlations are statistically significant, all of which show that the 

higher teachers’ scores were on these items during the observation, the higher were 

student test scores) 

• The two items under the heading “Part II, Student Engagement” (6 of 8 correlations 

are statistically significant, all of which show that the more engaged students were 

during the observation, the higher were student test scores) 

One interesting question that can be examined with study data is whether behaviors that are 

observed most frequently are those for which there is a statistically significant relationship with 

test scores. To investigate this issue, we examined the correlation between the number of times 

ERC items were observed (focusing on behaviors in Table V.1a, which are items for which 

observers marked tallies each time the item was observed) and the extent to which there was a 

statistically significant correlation between the item and post-test scores (Table V.3). 

We found that, among the ERC comprehension and vocabulary items, there is a positive, 

statistically significant correlation between the number of times items were observed and the 

extent to which there was a statistically significant correlation between the item and post-test 

scores. For each of these 24 items, we calculated the correlation between the average number of 

times it was observed per interval (the average of the fifth and sixth columns in Table V.1a) and 

the number of statistically significant correlations for that item in Table V.3 (only counting the 

columns that are regression-adjusted for baseline covariates, meaning a maximum of four 

statistically significant correlations per item). The correlation was 0.58 and is statistically 

significant, meaning that the more commonly implemented teaching practices are more likely to 

be correlated with higher post-test scores. 
152 

TABLE V.3 

REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION (ERC) INSTRU

AND STUDENT POST-TEST SCORES 

Outcomes and Covariate Adjustment 

Compositea GRADE 

Social Studies Re

Comprehensio

None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Prete

O

Cov

Part I, Comprehensionb

Activates prior knowledge and/or previews text before reading 

Teacher models 0.017 -0.002 0.017 0.000 -0.001 -0

(0.56) (0.75) (0.52) (0.99) (0.95) (

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and elaborations 0.025 -0.007 0.032 -0.001 0.014 -0

(0.40) (0.50) (0.22) (0.95) (0.59) (

Students practice 0.007 -0.012 0.016 -0.003 -0.014 -0

(0.84) (0.31) (0.58) (0.77) (0.62) (

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students about text 

structure

Teacher models -0.019 0.009 -0.018 0.004 -0.013 0

(0.39) (0.28) (0.36) (0.38) (0.48) (

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and elaborations 0.003 0.019 -0.002 0.014 0.014 0

(0.90) (0.07) (0.94) (0.13) (0.52) (

Students practice -0.005 0.018 -0.006 0.016 -0.004 0

(0.85) (0.11) (0.80) (0.08) (0.84) (

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to use comprehension strategies 

Teacher models -0.035* 0.008 -0.041* -0.004 -0.014 0

(0.01) (0.16) (0.00) (0.39) (0.34) (

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and elaborations 0.113* 0.041* 0.092* 0.026* 0.091* 0

(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.04) (0.00) (

Students practice 0.116* 0.054* 0.094* 0.038* 0.101* 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to generate questions 

Teacher models -0.015 -0.001 -0.009 0.004 -0.006 0

(0.13) (0.89) (0.24) (0.49) (0.45) (

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and elaborations 0.039 -0.003 0.036 0.000 0.017 -0

(0.11) (0.80) (0.10) (0.99) (0.51) (
Table V.3 (continued) 

153 

Outcomes and Covariate Adjustment 

Compositea GRADE 

Social Studies Re

Comprehensio

None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Prete

O

Cov

Students practice 0.039 -0.001 0.037 0.003 0.023 -0

(0.32) (0.96) (0.29) (0.82) (0.56) (

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches text features to interpret text

Teacher models 0.026 0.003 0.025 0.005 0.008 -0

(0.26) (0.87) (0.27) (0.80) (0.65) (

Teacher explains, reviews, provides examples and elaborations 0.033 0.000 0.036 0.005 0.006 -0

(0.28) (1.00) (0.17) (0.71) (0.87) (

Students practice 0.021 0.025 0.022 0.026 -0.008 -0

(0.47) (0.20) (0.39) (0.10) (0.81) (

Teacher asks students to justify their responses 0.044 -0.004 0.033 -0.007 0.029 -0

(0.20) (0.78) (0.26) (0.57) (0.33) (

Teacher asks questions based on material in the text that are beyond the 0.006 0.002 -0.007 -0.010 -0.009 -0literal level (0.85) (0.91) (0.81) (0.38) (0.73) (Teacher elaborates, clarifies, or links concepts during and after text 0.032 0.008 0.028 0.003 0.009 0Reading (0.25) (0.57) (0.29) (0.83) (0.73) (

Part I, Vocabularyb

Teacher provides an explanation and/or a definition or asks a student to 0.022 -0.026 0.021 -0.013 0.021 -0read a definition (0.44) (0.05) (0.41) (0.25) (0.39) (Teacher provides examples, contrasting examples, multiple meanings, 0.035 0.000 0.027 -0.004 0.026 -0immediate elaborations to students’ responses (0.39) (0.97) (0.45) (0.70) (0.46) (Teacher uses visuals/pictures, gestures related to word meaning, facial -0.020 0.002 -0.026 -0.003 -0.010 0expressions, or demonstrations to discuss/demonstrate word meanings (0.65) (0.92) (0.51) (0.87) (0.82) (Teacher teaches word-learning strategies using context clues, word 0.073* 0.003 0.061* 0.001 0.072* 0parts, root meaning (0.01) (0.78) (0.01) (0.91) (0.00) (Students do or are asked to do something that requires knowledge of 0.028 0.004 0.017 -0.005 0.026 -0Words (0.39) (0.74) (0.57) (0.60) (0.39) (Students are given an opportunity to apply word-learning strategies 0.033 -0.006 0.022 -0.009 0.028 -0using context clues, word parts, and root meaning (0.06) (0.46) (0.18) (0.18) (0.05) (
Table V.3 (continued) 

154 

Outcomes and Covariate Adjustment 

Compositea GRADE 

Social Studies Re

Comprehensio

None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Prete

O

Cov

Part I, Grouping Arrangements and Text Readingc

Teacher is working with: 

Whole class (>75% of class) -0.034 -0.002 -0.042 -0.012 -0.006 0

(0.26) (0.86) (0.11) (0.29) (0.81) (

Large group (> 6 students, < 75% of class) 0.012 -0.002 0.017 0.001 0.010 -0

(0.62) (0.73) (0.39) (0.91) (0.56) (

Small groups (3-6 students) -0.006 0.012 -0.002 0.016 -0.023 -0

(0.84) (0.35) (0.95) (0.17) (0.45) (

Pairs 0.035 0.000 0.039 -0.003 0.023 0

(0.18) (0.97) (0.09) (0.78) (0.37) (

An individual -0.037 -0.012 -0.029 -0.009 -0.031 -0

(0.20) (0.21) (0.24) (0.28) (0.35) (

No direct student contact -0.003 -0.008 -0.011 -0.016 0.003 0

(0.90) (0.38) (0.62) (0.14) (0.91) (

Text reading (applies to reading-connected text) 

Supported oral reading (includes choral and round-robin reading) -0.025 -0.021 -0.013 -0.005 -0.013 -0

(0.40) (0.12) (0.62) (0.66) (0.61) (

Independent silent reading 0.020 0.021 0.020 0.019 0.010 0

(0.52) (0.16) (0.46) (0.10) (0.72) (

Independent or buddy oral reading 0.039 0.031* 0.042 0.030* 0.001 0

(0.14) (0.02) (0.08) (0.01) (0.98) (

Teacher reads aloud 0.001 0.010 -0.004 0.007 0.014 0

(0.96) (0.36) (0.85) (0.50) (0.55) (

Teacher reads aloud with students following along silently -0.004 -0.015 -0.011 -0.019 0.021 0

(0.90) (0.29) (0.67) (0.14) (0.40) (

Text not present -0.009 -0.020 0.000 -0.014 -0.003 -0

(0.78) (0.16) (0.99) (0.24) (0.93) (

Text present but not being read -0.054 -0.004 -0.042 -0.003 -0.033 -0

(0.13) (0.77) (0.15) (0.81) (0.31) (
Table V.3 (continued) 

155 

Outcomes and Covariate Adjustment 

Compositea GRADE 

Social Studies Re

Comprehensio

None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Prete

O

Cov

Part II, Instruction Effectivenessd

Gave inaccurate and/or confusing explanations or feedback -0.024 -0.005 -0.016 -0.005 -0.022 -0

(0.35) (0.72) (0.42) (0.66) (0.42) (

Missed opportunity to correct or address error -0.044* -0.021 -0.036* -0.019 -0.032 -0

(0.05) (0.22) (0.04) (0.09) (0.18) (

Provided opportunities for most students to participate actively during 0.005 0.012 -0.001 0.008 -0.013 -0teacher-led instruction (0.88) (0.38) (0.96) (0.45) (0.66) (Paced instruction so that the length of the comprehension or vocabulary 0.017 0.006 0.012 0.011 -0.013 -0activities was appropriate for this age group (0.63) (0.64) (0.66) (0.27) (0.69) (Taught using outlining and/or note taking 0.042 -0.004 0.028 -0.010 0.025 -0

(0.17) (0.77) (0.30) (0.39) (0.39) (

Used graphic organizers -0.040 -0.004 -0.032 0.007 -0.032 -0

(0.21) (0.78) (0.25) (0.52) (0.27) (

Kept students thinking for two or more seconds before calling on a -0.003 0.014 -0.009 0.010 -0.022 0student to respond to a complex question (0.92) (0.33) (0.75) (0.34) (0.48) (Gave independent/pairs/small-group practice in answering comprehension questions or applying comprehension strategy(ies) with 0.051 0.014 0.043 0.013 0.037 0expected written product (0.11) (0.30) (0.12) (0.21) (0.17) (Used writing activities in response to reading (does not include fill-in- 0.071* 0.024 0.058* 0.021 0.073* 0the-blank or one-word answers) (0.01) (0.14) (0.02) (0.14) (0.00) (

Part II, Teachers’ Management/Responsiveness to Studentse

Teacher maximized the amount of time available for instruction 0.081* 0.045* 0.059* 0.032* 0.060* 0

(0.01) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.03) (

Teacher managed student behavior effectively in order to avoid 0.097* 0.064* 0.071* 0.047* 0.069* 0disruptions and provide productive learning environments (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (Teacher redirected discussion if a student response was leading the 0.041 0.044* 0.030 0.039* -0.001 -0group off topic/focus (0.36) (0.03) (0.41) (0.01) (0.97) (
Table V.3 (continued) 

156 

Outcomes and Covariate Adjustment 

Compositea GRADE 

Social Studies Re

Comprehensio

None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Pretest and 

Other 

Covariates None 

Prete

O

Cov

Part II, Student Engagementf

Student engagement during the first half of the observation session 0.105* 0.037* 0.089* 0.031* 0.076* 0

(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) (

Student engagement during the remainder of the observation session 0.105* 0.040* 0.088* 0.036* 0.064* 0

(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (

SOURCE: Classroom observations and reading comprehension tests administered by study team. NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients and p-values (in parentheses) are reported for each ERC instrument item. The p-values prese

clustering of students within schools but not for multiple-hypotheses testing. The outcome for each regression is indicated by the r

regression models vary by column. The first column for each outcome includes no additional covariates (so it is simply regressin

instrument items). The second column includes the GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered in the fall of each cohort year, student 

language learner status, school location, and teacher race as covariates in the regression. 

aThe composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by subtracting the mean and dividin

variable for students in the sample. The composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

bFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded tallies for the number of times each behavior was observed. cFor items in this pane of the table, observers selected all items that they observed (more than one category could be selected). dFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded “Yes” or “No” for each item. eFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded a “1” for minimal/poor, “2” for fair, “3” for good, or “4” for excellent. fFor items in this pane of the table, observers recorded a “1” for few engaged, “2” for many engaged, or “3” for most engaged. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. *Statistically different at the .05 level. 
157

C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHER EFFICACY AND PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT AND TEST SCORES 

Teachers’ self-reported efficacy (Hoy and Woolfolk 1993) and hours of professional 

development were collected through a survey of teachers (described in Chapter 1). In this section 

we examine whether efficacy and professional development are correlated with students’ reading 

comprehension test scores among teachers and students in our sample. Previous research has 

found mixed evidence of correlations between various measures of teacher efficacy and 

professional development and students’ reading comprehension, as follows: 

Self-Efficacy 

• Ross (1994) conducted a literature review of 88 teacher self-efficacy studies, 5 of 

which reported significant correlations between teacher efficacy and student 

achievement in language-oriented subjects (reading, language arts, and social 

studies). 

• Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) surveyed a sample of 47 elementary schools and 

found that a one standard deviation increase in a school’s collective teacher efficacy 

index (as opposed to individual teacher self-efficacy) was correlated with a 

0.43 standard deviation increase in a combined measure of students’ second-, third-, 

and fifth-grade math and reading test scores. 

Professional Development 

• Angrist and Lavy (1998) determined that additional training in reading received by 

teachers in non-religious schools led to a significant improvement in fourth-grade 

students’ reading test scores by 0.62 standard deviation. 

• McCutchen et al. (2002) found that additional training in literacy instruction was 

associated with a 60 percent growth in first-grade reading comprehension scores after 

a year of reading instruction, significantly larger than the growth in scores for 

students whose teachers did not receive the training. 

• Jacob and Lefgren (2004) found that increases in in-service training had no 

statistically significant effect on reading achievement for students in third through 

sixth grade. 

Correlations between teacher efficacy and professional development hours and students’ 

scores on reading comprehension post-tests are presented in Table V.4. The numbers in this table 

are the standardized coefficients on each variable from a regression of a post-test on the variables 

of interest and other covariates. Below each regression coefficient is a p-value. Teacher efficacy 

and professional development hours are analyzed in separate regression models (for example, the 

correlation between efficacy and test scores is not adjusted for professional development hours). 

The regression coefficients in the first column come from a regression model without any other 

covariates (note that the regression of test scores on professional development includes all of the 

professional development indicator variables shown in the table with “no professional 
158

TABLE V.4 

REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN TEACHER TRAITS 

AND STUDENT POST-TEST SCORES 

Covariate Adjustment 

None Pretest 

Pretest and Other 

Covariates 

GRADE Score

Teacher Efficacy Scale 0.06 0.03 0.02 

(0.10) (0.07) (0.18) 

Hours of Professional Development in 

Reading Instruction 

1 to 8 0.07* 0.04* 0.02 

(0.04) (0.04) (0.20) 

9 to 16 0.02 0.03 -0.005 

(0.65) (0.22) (0.77) 

17 to 32 0.11* 0.05* 0.02 

(0.02) (0.03) (0.40) 

33 or more 0.06 0.02 0.001 

(0.11) (0.38) (0.96) 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Teacher Efficacy Scale 0.06 0.04 0.00 

(0.09) (0.11) (0.82) 

Hours of Professional Development in 

Reading Instruction 

1 to 8 0.05 0.03 0.01 

(0.20) (0.36) (0.77) 

9 to 16 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 

(0.85) (0.82) (0.29) 

17 to 32 0.07 0.04 0.00 

(0.06) (0.14) (0.92) 

33 or more 0.05 0.03 0.02 

(0.13) (0.33) (0.50) 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Teacher Efficacy Scale 0.05 0.03 0.01 

(0.16) (0.27) (0.51) 

Hours of Professional Development in 

Reading Instruction 

1 to 8 0.08 0.05 0.03 

(0.06) (0.06) (0.23) 

9 to 16 0.01 0.01 -0.02 

(0.87) (0.70) (0.47) 

17 to 32 0.12* 0.07* 0.04 

(0.01) (0.01) (0.08) 

33 or more 0.05 0.02 0.01 

(0.22) (0.60) (0.81) 
TABLE V.4 (continued) 

159

 Covariate Adjustment 

None Pretest 

Pretest and Other 

Covariates 

Composite Test Scorea

Teacher Efficacy Scale 0.07 0.03 0.01 

(0.09) (0.06) (0.31) 

Hours of Professional Development in 

Reading Instruction 

1 to 8 0.07* 0.04* 0.03 

(0.04) (0.05) (0.19) 

9 to 16 0.01 0.02 -0.02 

(0.86) (0.45) (0.42) 

17 to 32 0.11* 0.06* 0.02 

(0.01) (0.01) (0.30) 

33 or more 0.06 0.02 0.01 

(0.09) (0.29) (0.76) 

SOURCE: Teacher survey and reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients and p-values (in parentheses) are reported for each variable. The 

p-values presented in this table are adjusted for clustering of students within schools but not for 

multiple-hypotheses testing. The outcome for each regression is indicated by the pane labels (in gray 

shading). Other covariates in the regression models vary by column. The first column includes no 

additional covariates (so it is simply regressing test scores on the variable of interest—note that for 

professional development, all professional development indicator variables are included in the 

regression model with the omitted category being “no professional development”). The second column 

includes the GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered in the fall of each cohort year. In addition to 

those two tests, the third column also includes student ethnicity and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, and teacher race. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different from zero at the .05 level. 

 

 
160

development” as the omitted category). The second column adds pre-test scores from the 

GRADE and TOSCRF as covariates. The third column adds student ethnicity and race, student 

English language learner status, school location, and teacher race. All variables in these 

regressions are standardized. 

We find no evidence of a statistically significant correlation between teacher self-efficacy 

and reading comprehension test scores, regardless of whether regression adjustment is used. We 

do find a statistically significant correlation between hours of professional development and test 

scores in the first and second columns of the table, but this correlation disappears when we adjust 

for additional student, teacher, and school characteristics. 

D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN READING TIME AND TEST SCORES 

Daily time that teachers spend in reading activities and weekly time that students spend 

using informational text were both collected from teachers using two surveys (described in 

Chapter 1). In this section we examine whether daily time in reading activities and weekly time 

using informational text are correlated with students’ reading comprehension test scores among 

teachers and students in our sample. Previous research has found mixed evidence of the 

relationship between various measures of reading time and students’ achievement, as follows: 

• Reutzel and Hollingsworth (1991) found that greater reading skill instruction and 

reading time was associated with a statistically significant increase of 16.5 percent in 

test scores on a criterion-referenced reading comprehension test for fourth graders. 

• Anderson et al. (1988) found that additional minutes spent reading books was 

associated with a statistically significant increase in fifth-grade reading 

comprehension scores by 8.1 percentile points. 

• Connor et al. (2004) found that time spent on teacher-managed explicit instruction 

predicted greater growth in students' reading comprehension. 

• Taylor et al. (2000) found a significant correlation between K – 3 schools with higher 

scores on several measures of reading achievement (including reading 

comprehension) and the presence of teachers who spent more time on independent 

reading in those schools. 

• Taylor et al. (1990) found that minutes of reading per day during class time increased 

scores on a reading comprehension subtest by a magnitude of 0.11. 

• Seago-Tufaro (2002) found that additional time for independent reading made no 

significant difference in reading comprehension scores. 

Correlations between daily time in reading activities and weekly time using informational 

text and reading comprehension post-tests are presented in Table V.5. The numbers in this table 

are the standardized coefficients on each variable in a regression of a post-test on the variables of 

interest and other covariates. Below each regression coefficient is a p-value. The regression 

coefficients in the first column come from a regression model without any other covariates. The 
161

TABLE V.5 

REGRESSION-ADJUSTED CORRELATION BETWEEN TIME DEVOTED TO READING INSTRUCTION 

AND POST-TEST SCORES 

Covariate Adjustment 

None Pretest 

Pretest and Other 

Covariates 

GRADE Score

Time in reading activities (daily)a -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 

(0.21) (0.71) (0.47) 

Time using informational text (weekly)b -0.03 0.00 -0.01 

(0.62) (0.95) (0.43) 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Time in reading activities (daily)a -0.08* -0.04 -0.04 

(0.05) (0.15) (0.10) 

Time using informational text (weekly)b 0.00 0.02 0.01 

(0.95) (0.65) (0.78) 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score

Time in reading activities (daily)a -0.04 -0.01 -0.02 

(0.26) (0.57) (0.53) 

Time using informational text (weekly)b -0.02 0.00 -0.04 

(0.70) (0.95) (0.18) 

Composite Test Scorec

Time in reading activities (daily)a -0.06 -0.02 -0.03 

(0.14) (0.41) (0.21) 

Time using informational text (weekly)b -0.02 0.01 -0.01 

(0.72) (0.80) (0.53) 

SOURCE: Teacher Survey; reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: Standardized regression coefficients and p-values (in parentheses) are reported for each variable. The 

p-values presented in this table are adjusted for clustering of students within schools but not for 

multiple-hypotheses testing. The outcome for each regression is indicated by the pane labels (in gray 

shading). Other covariates in the regression models vary by column. The first column includes no 

additional covariates (so it is simply regressing test scores on the variable of interest). The second 

column includes the GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered in the fall of each cohort year. In 

addition to those two tests, the third column also includes student ethnicity and race, student English 

language learner status, school location, and teacher race. 

a

This variable is the number of minutes spent each day in any of the following activities: (1) Separate Instruction 

Using Intervention Curriculum (CRISS, ReadAbout, and Read for Real); (2) Core (Basal) Reading Curriculum; 

(3) Supplemental Reading Curriculum (other than the study interventions) focused on comprehension, vocabulary, 

or fluency; (4) Reading Lesson Using Fiction Materials; (5) Reading Lesson Using Nonfiction Materials; and 

(6) Other Language Arts Activity. 

b

This variable is the number of minutes of class time that teachers reported students spent using informational text in 

a typical week. 
TABLE V.5 (continued) 

 

162

c

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

*Statistically different from zero at the .05 level. 
163

second column adds pre-test scores from the GRADE and TOSCRF as covariates. The third 

column adds student ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, school location, 

and teacher race. As above, all variables in these regressions are standardized. 

We see no evidence of positive correlations between time teachers report spending on 

reading instruction each day and test scores. There is one statistically significant negative 

correlation between daily time spent in reading activities and the social studies reading 

comprehension test, but this relationship is not statistically significant after adjusting for pre-test 

scores. There were no statistically significant correlations between time spent in a typical week 

using informational text and test scores. 

E. CORRELATION OF IMPACTS AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 

As described in detail in Appendix A, random assignment of schools to treatment and 

control groups was conducted within blocks of similar schools. In this section, we examine the 

correlations between regression-adjusted, block-level impacts and the average characteristics of 

the schools in the blocks that are involved in the calculation of each impact. For example, there 

were 13 blocks for which an impact of Project CRISS was calculated. For each of those 

13 blocks, we calculate the impact of Project CRISS and the average characteristics of all the 

schools in that block that were either assigned to Project CRISS or the control group. We then 

calculate the correlation between those 13 impacts and the average characteristics of the 

13 blocks of schools. Given the small number of blocks, statistical power for these correlations is 

limited. 

These exploratory correlations are intended to inform future research and development of 

programs and must be interpreted cautiously. A statistically significant correlation between 

block-level impacts and block characteristics should not be confused with a statistically 

significant impact of a curriculum. There are too few schools within each block to calculate the 

statistical significance of block-specific impacts, so none of the block-specific impacts can be 

characterized as statistically significant. Furthermore, the correlation between block-level 

impacts and block characteristics could be affected by variation across blocks in unobserved 

characteristics that are correlated with the observed characteristics. See Chapter III for findings 

on the experimental impacts of these programs. 

Correlations are presented in Table V.6. The block characteristics included in the table are 

the racial and ethnic makeup of the schools, the percentage of students receiving free or reducedprice lunch, and the percentage of students classified as ELL. We observe the following 

statistically significant correlations: 

• A negative correlation of -0.64 between impacts of Project CRISS and the percentage 

of black students in a school. 

Recall that the analyses presented in this chapter are not experimental and do not support 

causal conclusions. Therefore, findings from these analyses should be interpreted cautiously. 
164

TABLE V.6 

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN BLOCK-LEVEL TEST SCORE IMPACTS AND BLOCK-LEVEL 

MEANS OF SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 

Block Characteristic Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

Composite Test Scorea

Percentage of Hispanic Students 0.29 0.04 -0.14 

(0.33) (0.89) (0.71) 

Percentage of White Students 0.10 0.12 -0.06 

(0.73) (0.71) (0.87) 

Percentage of Black Students -0.36 -0.17 0.14 

(0.22) (0.60) (0.71) 

Percentage of FRPL Students -0.20 -0.27 0.24 

(0.52) (0.39) (0.53) 

Percentage of ELL Students 0.32 -0.16 -0.13 

(0.28) (0.62) (0.73) 

GRADE Score 

Percentage of Hispanic Students 0.18 -0.02 0.10 

(0.57) (0.94) (0.80) 

Percentage of White Students -0.07 0.20 -0.06 

(0.83) (0.53) (0.87) 

Percentage of Black Students -0.22 -0.16 -0.05 

(0.47) (0.61) (0.90) 

Percentage of FRPL Students -0.18 -0.15 0.15 

(0.56) (0.64) (0.70) 

Percentage of ELL Students 0.27 -0.22 0.11 

(0.38) (0.50) (0.78) 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Percentage of Hispanic Students 0.40 -0.19 -0.60 

(0.18) (0.56) (0.09) 

Percentage of White Students 0.40 -0.11 0.09 

(0.18) (0.73) (0.81) 

Percentage of Black Students -0.64* 0.27 0.42 

(0.02) (0.40) (0.26) 

Percentage of FRPL Students -0.51 0.02 0.29 

(0.08) (0.94) (0.45) 

Percentage of ELL Students 0.40 -0.30 -0.59 

(0.18) (0.35) (0.09) 
TABLE V.6 (continued) 

165

Block Characteristic Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Percentage of Hispanic Students 0.01 0.27 -0.14 

(0.97) (0.40) (0.71) 

Percentage of White Students 0.21 0.09 0.06 

(0.49) (0.78) (0.88) 

Percentage of Black Students -0.06 -0.38 0.12 

(0.84) (0.22) (0.76) 

Percentage of FRPL Students 0.06 -0.52 0.13 

(0.85) (0.08) (0.74) 

Percentage of ELL Students -0.04 0.07 -0.18 

(0.90) (0.83) (0.64) 

SOURCE: School Information Form, 2005–2006 Common Core of Data (CCD); reading comprehension tests 

administered by study team. 

NOTE: Schools were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups within blocks of similar schools. For 

the second cohort, there were 13 blocks with CRISS schools, 12 blocks with 

ReadAbout schools, and 9 blocks with Read for Real Schools. The numbers reported are the 

correlations between regression-adjusted block-level impacts and the average characteristics of the 

schools in the blocks that are involved in the calculation of each impact. Numbers in parentheses are 

the p-values for these correlations. Regression-adjusted impacts were calculated taking into account 

pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, 

whether students were overage for grade, teacher sex, teacher age, teacher race, and district indicators. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by 

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

ELL = English language learners; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and 

Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 

*Statistically different from zero at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that 

are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
167

 

VI. SUMMARY 

This study used a rigorous experimental design to assess the effects of four reading 

comprehension curricula on reading comprehension among fifth-grade students in selected 

districts across the country. All four curricula were included in the first year of the study and in 

the sixth-grade component of the study’s second year, and three of the four curricula were 

included in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year. Consistent with the study’s 

focus on schools serving low-income students, the districts and schools that the study team 

targeted—and that agreed to participate in the study—had above-average poverty levels, and 

were larger and more urban, on average, than districts and schools in the United States. 

The key findings from the second year of the study are as follows: 

Implementation Findings 

• During summer and early fall 2007, 50 to 91 percent of treatment teachers were 

trained to use the curricula. Fifty percent of Read for Real teachers, 89 percent of 

Project CRISS teachers, and 91 percent of ReadAbout teachers were trained in the use 

of the curricula. 

• In the spring of the second year of the study, over 80 percent (83 to 96 percent) 

of treatment teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. Eighty-three 

percent of Read for Real teachers, 92 percent of Project CRISS teachers, and 

96 percent of ReadAbout teachers reported using their assigned curriculum. The 

percentage of teachers who reported using each of the three interventions did not 

differ significantly between the first and second years. 

• Classroom observation data from the second year of intervention 

implementation showed that teachers implemented 65 to 94 percent of the 

behaviors deemed important by the developers for implementing each 

curriculum. Project CRISS and ReadAbout teachers implemented, on average, 

65 and 94 percent of such behaviors, respectively, and Read for Real teachers 

implemented 75 and 76 percent of the behaviors deemed important for the two types 

of instructional days that are part of that curriculum. There were no statistically 

significant differences in average fidelity levels between the first and second study 

years.76

76The fidelity levels reported for ReadAbout and Read for Real are based on fidelity form behaviors that fell 

within a window observed by the study’s classroom observers. The fidelity levels reported for Project CRISS are 

based on all behaviors on the CRISS fidelity form. See Chapter II for more information. 
168

 

Findings on Intervention Effectiveness 

• The curricula did not have an impact on students one year after the end of their 

implementation. In the second year, after the first cohort of students was no longer 

using the interventions, there were no statistically significant impacts of any of the 

four curricula. (In the first year, a statistically significant negative impact of Reading 

for Knowledge was observed for the first cohort of students.) 

• Impacts were not statistically significantly larger after schools had one year of 

experience using the curricula. Impacts for the second cohort of students (who 

attended schools that had one prior year of experience using the study curricula) were 

not statistically significantly different from zero or from the impacts for the first 

cohort of students. (Treatment students in the second cohort attended schools that had 

one prior year of experience using the study curricula, while treatment students in the 

first cohort attended schools with no prior experience using the study curricula. 

Reading for Knowledge was not implemented with the second cohort of students.) 

• The impact of one of the curricula (ReadAbout) was statistically significantly 

larger after teachers had one year of experience using the curricula. There was a 

positive, statistically significant impact of ReadAbout on the social studies reading 

comprehension assessment for second-cohort students taught by teachers who were in 

the study both years (effect size: 0.22). This impact was statistically significantly

larger than the impact for first cohort of students taught by the same teachers in the 

first year of the study.77

Findings on the Effectiveness of the Interventions for Subgroups of Students 

• The curricula did not have differential impacts on fifth-grade post-test scores for 

most Cohort 2 student subgroups (282 of 288). Statistically significantly greater 

impacts were observed for Project CRISS students scoring in the top third of the pretest GRADE distribution, for Read for Real students classified as ELL or taught by 

teachers with below-median teaching efficacy, for ReadAbout students in schools 

with below-median School Professional Culture scores, and for combined treatment 

group students taught by teachers below the median efficacy level or in schools with 

below-median School Professional Culture scores. All of these findings have a causal 

interpretation—with the exception of the teaching efficacy and School Professional 

Culture subgroup findings—because the subgroups were formed using characteristics 

observed at the beginning of the study’s implementation year. 

• The curricula did not have differential impacts on sixth-grade follow-up scores 

for most Cohort 1 student subgroups (352 of 360). Statistically significantly greater 

impacts were observed for Project CRISS students scoring in the bottom third of the 

pre-test TOSCRF distribution or scoring below the TOSCRF national norm sample 

77This is similar to the impact observed after schools had one year of experience with the curricula, but that 

impact was not statistically significant (p-value: .053). 
169

average, for ReadAbout students scoring in the middle third of the pre-test TOSCRF 

distribution, and for combined treatment group students (1) scoring in the bottom 

third of the pre-test TOSCRF distribution, (2) scoring below the TOSCRF national 

norm sample average, (3) not classified as ELL, or (4) scoring in the bottom third of 

the pre-test GRADE distribution. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
171

REFERENCES

Adams, A., Carnine, D., and Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional Strategies for Studying Content 

Area Texts in the Intermediate Grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 27-55. 

Adams, R.J., Wilson, M., and Wang, W.C. (1997). The Multidimensional Random Coefficients 

Multinomial Logit Model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 1-23. 

Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T., and Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in Reading and How Children 

Spend Their Time Outside of School. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285-303. 

Anderson, V., and Roit, M. (1993). Planning and Implementing Collaborative Strategy 

Instruction for Delayed Readers in Grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2) 

(Special Issue: Strategies Instruction), 121-137. 

Angrist, J.D., and Lavy, V. (1988). Does Teacher Training Affect Pupil Learning? Evidence 

from Matched Comparisons in Jerusalem Public Schools. National Bureau of Economic 

Research, Working Paper 6781. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Baumann, J.F. (1984). The Effectiveness of a Direct Instruction Paradigm for Teaching Main 

Idea Comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115. 

Baumann, J.F., and Bergeron, B.S. (1993). Story Map Instruction Using Children’s Literature: 

Effects on First Graders’ Comprehension of Central Narrative Elements. Journal of Reading 

Behavior, 25(4), 407-437. 

Borg, W.R. (1980). Time and School Learning. In C. Denham and A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to 

Learn, (pp. 33-72). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. 

Brophy, J., and Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from Teaching: A Developmental Perspective. 

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 

Brown, A.L., and Day, J.D. (1983). Macrorules for Summarizing Text: The Development of 

Expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14. 

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., and Schuder, T. (1996). A Quasi-Experimental 

Validation of Transactional Strategies Instruction with Low-Achieving Second-Graders. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37. 

Carlisle, J. (2003). Teacher’s QUEST: Self-Administered Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: 

Regents of the University of Michigan. 

Carlisle, J., and Rice, M. (2002). Improving Reading Comprehension: Research-Based 

Principles and Practices. Baltimore, MD: York Press. 

Chall, J. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace. 
172

Chromy, J.R. (1979). Sequential Sample Selection Methods. Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section. 401–406. 

Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Petrella, J.N. (2004). Effective Reading Comprehension 

Instruction: Examining Child by Instruction Interactions. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 96(4), 682-698. 

Consortium on Chicago School Research. (1999). Improving Chicago’s Schools: The Teachers’ 

Turn, 1999; Elementary School Teacher Survey, 1999. Chicago: CCSR, 1999. Retrieved 

from http://www.consortium-chicago.org. 

Cooley, W.W., and Leinhardt, G. (1980). The Instructional Dimensions Study. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 7-25. 

Crawford, L.W., Martin, C.E., and Philbin, M.M. (2005). Read for Real: Nonfiction Strategies 

for Reading Results. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser. 

Darch, C., and Gersten, R. (1986). Direction Setting Activities in Reading Comprehension: A 

Comparison of Two Approaches. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 9(3), 235-243. 

Darch, C., and Kame’enui, E. (1987). Teaching LD Students Critical Reading Skills: A 

Systematic Replication. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 82-91. 

Denham, C., and Lieberman, A. (eds.). (1980). Time to Learn. Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Education. 

Desimone, L. (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be Successfully 

Implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479. 

Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M.S., Vavrus, L.G., 

Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., and Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of Explaining the Reasoning 

Associated with Using Reading Strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 347-386. 

Duke, N.K., and Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective Practices for Developing Reading 

Comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About 

Reading Instruction (Third Edition), (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading 

Association. 

Dunnett, C.W. (1955). A Multiple Comparison Procedure for Comparing Several Treatments 

with a Control. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50, 1096-1121. 

Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What Classroom Observations Reveal About Reading Comprehension 

Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. 

Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., 

Murphy, N., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D., and Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of 

Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. 
173

Educational Testing Service. (2007a). Science Reading Comprehension Assessment

(unpublished). Princeton, NJ: ETS. 

Educational Testing Service. (2007b). Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment

(unpublished). Princeton, NJ: ETS. 

Gersten, R., Baker, S., and Lloyd, J.W. (2000). Designing High Quality Research in Special 

Education: Group Experimental Design. Journal of Special Education, 34, 2-18. 

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., and Innocenti, M.S. (2005). 

Quality Indicators for Group Experimental and Quasi-experimental Research in Special 

Education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149-164. 

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., and Baker, S. (2001). Teaching Reading Comprehension 

Strategies to Students with Learning Disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-

320. 

Gibson, S., and Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher Efficacy: A Construct Validation. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. 

Glazerman, S., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Isenberg, E., Lugo-Gil, J., Grider, M., 

Britton, E., and Ali, M. (2008). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results From 

the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study. Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Glazerman, S., and Myers, D. (2004). Assessing the Effectiveness of Education Interventions: 

Issues and Recommendations for the Title I Evaluation. Washington, DC: Mathematica 

Policy Research. 

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., and Hoy, A.W. (2000). Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, 

Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement. American Education Research Journal, 

37(2), 479-507. 

Guthrie, J.T., Cox, K.E., Anderson, E., Harris, K., Mazzoni, S., and Rach, L. (1998). Principles 

of Integrated Instruction for Engagement in Reading. Educational Psychology Review,

10(2), 177-199. 

Guthrie, J.T., Shafer, W.D., Von Secker, C., and Alban, T. (2000a). Contributions of Integrated 

Reading Instruction and Text Resources to Achievement and Engagement in a Statewide 

School Improvement Program. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 211-226. 

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., and Von Secker, C. (2000b). Effects of Integrated Instruction on 

Motivation and Strategy Use in Reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-

341. 

Hammill, D., Wiederholt, J., and Allen, E. (2006). Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency 

(TOSCRF), Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Inc.
174

Hare, V.C., and Borchardt, K.M. (1984). Direct Instruction in Summarization Skills. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 20(1), 62-78. 

Hart, B., and Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young 

American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brooks. 

Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. and Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric 

Models. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 346-363. 

Hoy, W.K., and Woolfolk, A.E. (1993). Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and the Organizational 

Health of Schools. Elementary School Journal, 93, 355-372.

Ingersoll, R. Holes in the Teacher Supply Bucket. The School Administrator, 59(3), 42-43. 

Jacob, B.A., and Lefgren, L. (2004). The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: 

Quasi-Experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago. The Journal of 

Human Resources, 39(1), 50-79. 

James-Burdumy, S., Myers, D., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., Gersten, W., Dimino, J., Dole, J., 

Liang, L., Vaughn, S., and Edmonds, M. (2006). The National Evaluation of Reading 

Comprehension Interventions: Design Report. Final report submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. 

James-Burdumy, S., Mansfield, W., Deke, J., Carey, N., Lugo-Gil, J., Hershey, A., Douglas, A., 

Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., and Faddis, B. (2009). Effectiveness of 

Selected Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions: Impacts on a First Cohort of 

Fifth-Grade Students (NCEE 2009-4032). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

Jones, M.P. (1996). Indicator and Stratification Methods for Missing Explanatory Variables in 

Multiple Linear Regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(433), 222-

230. 

Klinger, J.K, Vaughn, S., and Shay Schumm, J. (1998). Collaborative Strategic Reading During 

Social Studies in Heterogeneous Fourth-Grade Classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99,

(1), 3-22. 

Levin, H.M., and McEwan, P.J. (2001). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications. 

Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Liang, L.A., and Dole, J.A. (2006). Help with Reading Comprehension: Comprehension 

Instructional Frameworks. The Reading Teacher, 58, 2-13. 

Linacre, J.M. (2006). Winsteps (Version 3.61.2). Computer software. Chicago: Winsteps.com. 

Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E., and Epstein, M. (1980). Direct Instruction: Effects on Oral and 

Written Language Comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 3, 70-76. 
175

Lord, F.M. (1980). Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Lord, F.M., and Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA: 

Addison-Wesley. 

Madden, N.A., and Crenson, V. (2006). Reading for Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Success for 

All Foundation. 

McCutchen, D., Abbott, R.D., Green, L.B., Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., Quiroga, T., 

and Gray, A.L. (2002). Beginning Literacy: Links Among Teacher Knowledge, Teacher 

Practice, and Student Learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69-86. 

Martin, V.L., and Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-Interrogation Effects Depend on the Nature 

of the Question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113-119. 

Masters, G.N. (1982). A Rasch Model for Partial Credit Scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149-174. 

Masters, G.N., and Wright, B.D. (1997). The Partial Credit Model. In W.J. van der Linden and 

R.K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, (pp. 101-121). New 

York: Springer-Verlag. 

Moats, L. (1999). Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science. Washington, DC: American Federation 

of Teachers. 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Common Core of Data, Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2006-07, October 2008. 

Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National 

Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific 

Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH 

publication no. 00-4769.) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. Third Edition. New York: 

McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Fidelity of Implementation 

and Its Relationship to Outcomes in K-12 Curriculum Intervention Research. Review of 

Educational Research, 78, 33-84. 

Palincsar, A.S., and Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and 

Comprehension-Monitoring Activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175. 

Patching, W., Kame’enui, E., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., and Colvin, G. (1983). Direct Instruction 

in Critical Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 406-418. 

Pearson, P.D., and Dole, J.A. (1987). Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A Review of Research 

and a New Conceptualization of Instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165. 
176

Pearson, P.D., and Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension Instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. 

Mosenthal, and P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Volume II (pp. 815-

860). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R. Dole, J.A., and Duffy, G.G. (1992). Developing Expertise in 

Reading Comprehension. In S.J. Samuels and A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to 

Say About Reading Instruction (Second Edition) (pp. 145-199). Newark, DE: International 

Reading Association. 

Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension Strategies Instruction: A Twentieth Century Report. In C.C. 

Block and M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices, 

(pp. 11-27). New York: Guilford Press. 

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading Instruction That Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. New 

York: Guilford. 

Pressley, M. (2000). What Should Comprehension Instruction Be the Instruction of? In M. 

Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 

Volume III (pp. 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

RAND Reading Study Group. (2000). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in 

Reading Comprehension. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and 

Improvement. 

Raphael, T.E., and Pearson, P.D. (1985). Increasing Students’ Awareness of Sources of 

Information for Answering Questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217-

235. 

Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., and Krapp, A. (eds.). (1992). The Role of Interest in Learning and 

Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Reutzel, D.R., and Hollingsworth P.M. (1991). Reading Time in School: Effect on Fourth 

Graders’ Performance on a Criterion-Referenced Comprehension Test. Journal of 

Educational Research, 84(3), 170-176. 

Rosenshine, B. (1980). How Time Is Spent in Elementary Classrooms. In C. Denham and A. 

Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Learn (pp. 107-126). Washington, DC: National Institute of 

Education. 

Rosenshine, B., and Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review 

of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530. 

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., and Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching Students to Generate Questions: 

A Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2) 181-221. 

Rosenshine, B., and Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching Functions. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of 

Research on Teaching, Third Edition (pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan. 
177

Ross, J.A. (1994). Beliefs That Make a Difference: The Origins and Impacts of Teacher 

Efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum 

Studies. 

Santa, C.M., Havens, L.T., and Valdes, B.J. (2004). Project CRISS: Creating Independence 

through Student-Owned Strategies (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. 

Seago-Tufaro, C. (2002). The Effects of Independent Reading on Oral Reading Fluency and 

Comprehension (EDRS 463 553). M.A. Research Project, Kean University, 2002. 

Schochet, P.Z. (2008). Guidelines for Multiple Testing in Impact Evaluations of Educational 

Interventions. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research. 

Scholastic. (2005). ReadAbout: The Personal Reading Coach for Every Student. New York: 

Scholastic. 

Schraw, G., Bruning, R., and Zosvoboa, C. (1995). Source of Situational Interest. Journal of 

Reading Behavior, 27, 1-17. 

Shany, M.T., and Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted Reading Practice: Effects on Performance for 

Poor Readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3) 382-395. 

Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program 

in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 

Snow, C.E., and Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent Literacy and the Achievement Gap: What Do 

We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? New York: Carnegie Corporation of New 

York. 

Sparks, G.M. (1988). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Change and Subsequent Improvements in 

Classroom Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 111-117. 

Stallings, J. (1975). Implementation and Child Effects of Teaching Practices in Follow Through 

Classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 40(163), 7-8. 

Taylor, B.M., and Beach, R.W. (1984). The Effects of Text Structure Instruction on MiddleGrade Students’ Comprehension and Production of Expository Prose. Reading Research 

Quarterly, 19, 134-136. 

Taylor, B.M., Frye, B.J., and Maruyama, G.M. (1990). Time Spent Reading and Reading 

Growth. American Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 351-362. 

Taylor, B.M., Pearson, D.P., Clark, K., and Walpole, S. (2000). Effective Schools and 

Accomplished Teachers: Lessons About Primary-grade Reading Instruction in Low-income 

Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-165. 
178

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. (2007). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2007 Reading 

Assessments. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2007/r0003.asp. 

Williams, K.T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) 

Technical Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, Inc. 

Wood, E., Pressley, M., and Winne, P.H. (1990). Elaborative Interrogation Effects on Children’s 

Learning of Factual Content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741-748. 

Wright, B.D., and Linacre, J.M. (1994). Reasonable Mean-square Fit Values. Rasch 

Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. 

Wright, B.D., and Stone, M.H. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago: MESA. 

Wu, M.L., Adams, R.J., Wilson, M.R., and Haldane, S.A. (2007). ACER ConQuest, version 2.0.

Computer software. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. 
APPENDIX A 

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT 
This page is intentionally left blank.
A.3 

 

Random assignment was conducted to ensure that the estimated impacts of the interventions 

could be attributed to the interventions and not to other factors. The random assignment method 

used was designed to ensure an even distribution of the interventions overall and within each 

school district. Schools, not teachers, were randomly assigned due to concerns about the 

potential for contamination of control group teachers that could arise if teachers randomly 

assigned to treatment and control status were working within the same schools. 

Random assignment of schools (conducted prior to the 2006-2007 school year) was carried 

out within school districts, and, whenever possible, within blocks of schools formed in each 

district based on baseline reading scores in participating schools.78 Random assignment within 

districts helped to ensure that each treatment group was represented in each district. Conducting 

random assignment within blocks of schools in each district avoided the possibility of a “bad 

draw”—a situation in which all the schools with high (or low) baseline reading scores might be 

assigned to one of the study’s five arms (four treatment and one control).79 

Two different methods were used to form blocks of schools. The first method—explicit 

blocking—was generally used when the number of schools within a district was a multiple of 

five. The second method—implicit blocking—was generally used when the number of schools 

was not a multiple of five. 

In explicit blocking, the study team formed two groups or blocks of schools, and then 

conducted random assignment within those blocks. For example, in a district with 10 schools, 

two blocks of 5 schools were formed where the schools in each block had similar baseline 

reading achievement levels. Random assignment was then conducted separately within those two 

blocks. This resulted in one school from each block being assigned to each of the five arms of 

the study (and, overall, two schools assigned to each of the five study arms). 

When the blocked experimental design was not possible, implicit ordering through a 

modified Chromy selection procedure was implemented (Chromy 1979). This modified 

procedure ordered schools within districts based on baseline reading scores, and then the 

curricula were randomly assigned to the ordered list of schools to achieve an approximate 

balance in both baseline scores in each study arm and the number of times each intervention 

appeared overall. 

The treatment and control statuses of schools and students participating in the second year of 

the study were based on the random assignment conducted prior to the first year of the study. In 

particular, schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the study’s second year were in 

the same treatment or control group in the second year as in the first year. Students in the study’s 

sixth-grade component were classified according to their treatment status from the study’s first 

78In one district, blocks were formed based on magnet school status, as that district had five participating 

schools that were regular schools and five participating schools that were magnet schools. 

79Another factor we considered when conducting the random assignment was the desire to have at least two 

control schools in each district, so that impacts for that district could still be estimated even if one of the control 

schools dropped out of the study. 
A.4 

year. For example, students who attended Read for Real schools in the study’s first year are in 

the Read for Real group in the analyses for the study’s sixth-grade component, regardless of the 

school they attended in the study’s second year. Likewise, students who attended control schools 

in the study’s first year are in the control group for the analyses of the study’s sixth-grade 

component. This allows the study team to assess the effects of the single year of curricula 

implementation provided to students in the first year of the study.
APPENDIX B 

FLOW OF SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS THROUGH THE STUDY 
This page is intentionally left blank.
B.3 
B.4 
Schools in which students were 

enrolled in grade six

(N=252)

District 1: N=27

District 2: N=26

District 3: N=27

District 4: N=28

District 5: N=19

District 6: N=57

District 7: N=13

District 8: N=20

District 9: N=21

 District 10: N=14

Schools in which at least one 

student was tested at follow up

(N=176)

District 1: N=22

District 2: N=11

District 3: N=17

District 4: N=22

District 5: N=16

District 6: N=37

District 7: N=12

District 8: N=17

District 9: N=12

 District 10: N=10

Districts participating in study

(N=10)

TABLE B.1b

FLOW OF SCHOOLS THROUGH STUDY

Year 2, Cohort 1, Grade Six, Follow Up

B.5 
B.6 
B.7 

Consenting students

(N=4,076)

Transferred in after pretest and before 

January 1, 2008

(N=68)

Number of students assessed at pretest (N=4,039)

GRADE, fall (N=4,038)

TOSCRF (N=4,028)

Took both pretest assessments (N=4,028)

Nonconsenting students

(N=2)

Consenting students

(N=66)

Final sample of students at post-test 

(N=4,142)

All eligible students (N=4,255)

TABLE B.2a

FLOW OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS THROUGH STUDY

Year 2

Nonconsenting students

(N=91)

Eligible for pretest (N=4,055) Ineligible for pretest (N=21)

(Special education and language barrier)

Eligible for post-test

(N=3,720) Ineligible for post-test (N=422)

Transferred out of school (N=402)

Transferred out of grade (N=8)

Special education and homeschooled (N=7)

Language barrier (N=5) Number of students assessed at post-test (N=3,673)

GRADE, spring (N=3,655)

ETS test (N=3,644)

Took both post-test (N=3,636)

Took pretest and post-test GRADE (N=3,571)

Took pretest GRADE and ETS test (N=3,563)

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual 

Reading Fluency.
B.8 
APPENDIX C 

OBTAINING PARENT CONSENT 
This page is intentionally left blank.
C.3 

A. YEAR 1 

 At the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year, the study team began the process of 

obtaining consent from parents of fifth-grade students attending study schools. We collected lists 

of all fifth-grade students in each study school (by classroom) and then sent letters to these 

students’ parents requesting consent for their children to participate in the study. At the start of 

the spring semester, we again collected lists of fifth-grade students and sent consent letters to 

parents of students who had entered study classrooms after the baseline tests were administered 

but before January 1, 2007. 

 The letters sent home with students (which were translated into Spanish and Louisiana 

Creole for schools that requested it) explained the purpose of the study and all data collection 

activities involving students. The letters specified that students would be tested three times: at 

the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year, at the end of that year, and at the end of the 2007-

2008 school year. A brochure with answers to frequently asked questions was also included in 

the mailing. 

In most districts and with most students, passive consent procedures were implemented. Of 

the 6,446 students on teachers’ fall or spring semester classroom lists, 937 attended schools in 

one district requiring active consent and 5,509 attended schools in the nine remaining districts 

requiring passive consent (Table C.1). 

Parent consent was obtained for nearly all students (98 percent). We obtained consent for 93 

percent of the students in the active consent district, and for 99 percent of the students in the 

passive consent districts. 

There was no difference in consent rates by treatment or control status. Consent was 

obtained for 98 to 99 percent of students in each treatment and control condition (Table C.2). 

B. YEAR 2 

For students participating in the sixth-grade component of the second year of the study, no 

additional consent letters were distributed since the letters sent out in the 2006-2007 school year 

obtained consent for the Year 2 data collection. The parents of five students in the Cohort 1 

sample withdrew their consent to participate in the second year of the study (three in the Reading 

for Knowledge intervention group and two in the control group), but the consent rate remained at 

98 percent for the first cohort of students at the time of the follow-up survey in Year 2 (Table 

C.1). 

For students in schools participating in the fifth-grade component of the second year of the 

study, we implemented the same consent procedures as were used in Year 1 of the study. The 

one key difference was that the consent letters indicated that students would be tested two times: 

at the beginning and end of the 2007-2008 school year. We used the same procedures for passive 

and active districts, as described above. Of the 4,255 students on teachers’ fall or spring semester 

classroom lists, 660 attended schools in one district requiring active consent and 3,595 attended 

schools in the nine remaining districts requiring passive consent (Table C.1). 
C.4 

TABLE C.1 

CONSENT RATES, BY TYPE OF CONSENT 

All Eligible Students 

Eligible Students in Passive 

Consent Districts 

(N = 9) 

Eligible Students in Active 

Consent District 

(N = 1) 

With Consent With Consent With Consent 

Total Number Percentage Total Number Percentage Total Number Percentage 

Year 1 

Cohort 1 as of Post-Test 

6,446 6,350 98 5,509 5,478 99 937 872 93 

Year 2 

Cohort 1 as of Follow Up 

6,446 6,345 98 5,509 5,474 99 937 871 93 

Cohort 2 as of Post-Test 

4,255 4,142 97 3,595 3,584 100 660 558 85 
C.5 

TABLE C.2 

CONSENT RATES, BY INTERVENTION 

All Eligible Students 

With Consent 

Intervention All Number Percentage 

Year 1 

Cohort 1 as of Post-Test 

Total 6,446 6,350 98 

Combined Treatment Group 5,055 4,983 99 

Project CRISS 1,324 1,319 99 

ReadAbout 1,256 1,246 99 

Reading for Knowledge 1,220 1,191 98 

Read for Real 1,255 1,227 98 

Control Group 1,391 1,367 98 

Year 2 

Cohort 1 as of Follow Up 

Total 6,446 6,345 98 

Combined Treatment Group 5,055 4,978 99 

Project CRISS 1,324 1,319 99 

ReadAbout 1,256 1,246 99 

Reading for Knowledge 1,220 1,188 97 

Read for Real 1,255 1,227 98 

Control Group 1,391 1,365 98 

Cohort 2 as of Post-Test 

Total 4,255 4,142 97 

Combined Treatment Group 3,033 2,948 98 

Project CRISS 1,222 1,201 98 

ReadAbout 1,123 1,108 99 

Read for Real 688 639 93 

Control Group 1,222 1,194 98 
C.6 

Parent consent was again obtained for nearly all students (97 percent). We obtained consent 

for 85 percent of the students in the active consent district, and for 100 percent of the students in 

the passive consent districts. 

There was no difference in consent rates by treatment or control status. Consent was 

obtained for 93 to 98 percent of students in each treatment and control condition (Table C.2). 
APPENDIX D 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
This page is intentionally left blank.
D.3 

TABLE D.1 

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR INTERVENTIONS: NUMBER OF SCHOOL DAYS 

FROM START OF SCHOOL, BY DISTRICT 

District Number 1 2 3 4 5 6a 7 8 9 10 

School Calendar Type: 

Traditional (T) or Year-Round (Y) T T T T T T Y Y T T T 

Year 1, Cohort 1 

Days to Initial Scheduled Training 

Read for Real –12 –9 –15 10 –7 10 –4 n.a. –15 –10 –8 

Project CRISS –11 10 –13 23 22 2 n.a. 57 –15 –19 20 

ReadAbout –9 –12 –17 4 –8 11 40 –3; 6 –8 –9 –10 

Reading for Knowledge –11 –8 –15 33 –9 5 n.a. –8 –7 –8 –11 

Days Until Technology Was:b

Ordered 19 –12 16 3 0 0 30 –10 4 –5 –3 

Received 23 11 19 17 13 5 35 4 15 7 11 

Ready for Use—First Set 38 16 32 33 21 18 48 8 24 9 14 

Ready for Use—Second Set n.a. 26 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 31 n.a. n.a. 

Year 2, Cohort 2 

Days to Initial Scheduled Training 

Read for Realc 20 n.a. 14 * 12 * * n.a. 23 n.a. 10 

Project CRISS –14 11 –13 –8 –20 –5 16 –14 –14 14 –19 

ReadAbout –14 16 –19 –5 –7 5 25 5 26 n.a. –13 

Days Until Technology Was:d

Ordered 24 n.a. 15 –5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 25 n.a. 31 

Received 37 n.a. 36 48 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 78 n.a. 55 

Students begin using program 55 14 45 6 0 49 69 8 38 n.a. 37 

NOTE: A negative number in this table indicates that the training took place before the start of the school year. 

For example, the –12 days shown for District 1 for Read for Real indicates that the Read for Real training 

in District 1 took place 12 days before the start of the school year. Similarly, a positive number indicates 

that the training took place after the start of the school year.

a

One participating district included schools following both year-round and traditional calendars. 

b

Technology installation applies only to the ReadAbout program. Technology refers to the computers, software, and 

other equipment needed to implement the program. The developer reported to Mathematica when the technology was 

ready for use. 

c

In Year 2, Read for Real provided training to new teachers only. An asterisk (*) in the table indicates that there were 

no new teachers to train in a particular district. 

d

In Year 2, about half of the schools did not require new equipment, and those that did were adding to the equipment 

they received in Year 1. Therefore, days between the start of school and the ordering and receiving of equipment are 

not applicable in some cases; also, students may have begun using the program before the installation of the new 

equipment. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
This page is intentionally left blank. 
APPENDIX E 

SAMPLE SIZES AND RESPONSE RATES 
This page is intentionally left blank.
E.3 

 

In Year 1 all fifth-grade teachers in study schools were considered eligible for the study, but 

individual teachers could decline to participate. Teachers who taught combined fourth-/fifth- or 

fifth-/sixth-grade classes were ineligible, as were teachers who taught self-contained special 

education classes. Table E.1a shows the final teacher sample, by treatment group, and the 

percentage of teachers who responded to the teacher survey in Year 1. The response rates shown 

reflect that, in Year 2, seven fifth-grade teachers who had not responded to the teacher survey in 

Year 1 completed the survey. 

 In Year 2, the study team administered surveys to sixth-grade teachers of students from 

the first cohort. Table E.1b shows the percentage of sixth-grade teachers who responded to the 

teacher survey in Year 2.80

Students enrolled in fifth-grade classes in study schools as of January 1, 2007 were eligible 

for the study’s first cohort of students. Students in combined fourth-/fifth- or fifth-/sixth-grade 

classes were excluded, as were those in self-contained special education classes. Eligible 

students were considered in the study sample if parent consent was obtained (Table E.2). The 

same eligibility guidelines (and a sample cut-off date of January 1, 2008) were used in the 

second year of the study for the second cohort of fifth-grade students (see Table E.2). 

Baseline tests were administered during regular class periods to in-sample students at the 

start of the students’ first school year in the study (fall 2006 for Cohort 1 and fall 2007 for 

Cohort 2). The only in-sample students who were not eligible for testing were those whose 

limited English language skills precluded them from taking a test written in English. Most 

students who were absent on the initial test day were tested at subsequent make-up test sessions. 

Ninety-five percent of Cohort 1 students completed the baseline GRADE test, and 94 percent 

completed the baseline TOSCRF test; over 99 percent of students who took the baseline GRADE 

also took the baseline TOSCRF, and vice versa (Table E.3a). Ninety-seven percent of Cohort 2 

students completed the baseline GRADE test, and 97 percent completed the baseline TOSCRF 

test; over 99 percent of students who took the baseline GRADE also took the baseline TOSCRF, 

and vice versa. 

Post-tests were administered to in-sample students who had not transferred out of the school 

district at the time of testing. As was done at baseline, students whose limited English language 

skills at follow up precluded them from taking a test written in English were not included in 

post-testing. The post-tests were administered at the end of the students’ first school year in the 

study, on two consecutive days, with make-up sessions scheduled for absent students (spring 

2007 for Cohort 1 and spring 2008 for Cohort 2). Of the total sample of Cohort 1 students 

(including those who could not be tested because they were not geographically accessible), 88 

percent completed the GRADE post-test and 87 percent completed the ETS post-test (Table 

E.3b). Eighty-eight percent of Cohort 2 students completed the GRADE post-test and 88 percent 

completed the ETS post-test. In addition, more than 98 percent of Cohort 1 students who took the 

GRADE post-test also took the ETS post-test, and more than 99 percent of those who took the 

ETS post-test also took the GRADE post-test. These numbers were similar for Cohort 2 students. 

80Response rates by treatment/control group are not shown as this would result in teachers being counted more 

than once (as students from multiple treatment groups and the control group can have the same sixth-grade teacher). 
E.4 

TABLE E.1a 

TEACHER SURVEY SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, GRADE FIVE TEACHERS 

Teachers of Cohort 1 Students in Year 1a

Teachers 

Total 

Number 

Completing 

Survey 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

Total 268 256 96 

Combined Treatment Group 209 199 96 

Project CRISS 52 52 100 

ReadAbout 50 48 96 

Reading for Knowledge 53 50 94 

Read for Real 54 49 91 

Control Group 59 57 97 

Teachers of Cohort 2 Students in Year 2b

Total 184 n.a. n.a. 

Combined Treatment Group 130 n.a. n.a. 

Project CRISS 53 n.a. n.a. 

ReadAbout 46 n.a. n.a. 

Read for Real 31 n.a. n.a. 

Control Group 54 n.a. n.a. 

a

Response rates shown for Cohort 1 reflect additional efforts by the study team to administer teacher surveys in the 

second study year to the seven teachers who had not responded in the first year. All seven teachers contacted in the 

second year returned a completed survey. 

b

Teacher Surveys were not administered to fifth-grade teachers in Year 2, with one exception. The seven teachers 

who had not responded to the Teacher Survey in the first year of the study were asked to complete a Teacher 

Survey in the second year. 
E.5 

TABLE E.1b 

TEACHER SURVEY SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, GRADE SIX TEACHERS 

Teachers of Cohort 1 Students in Year 2a

Teachers 

Total 

Number 

Completing 

Survey 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

Total 907 486 54 

District 1 137 96 70 

District 2 25 14 56 

District 3 43 33 77 

District 4 193 54 28 

District 5 128 74 58 

District 6 113 83 73 

District 7 18 10 56 

District 8 80 75 94 

District 9 59 23 39 

District 10 111 24 22 

a

Students were asked to provide the last name of their Language Arts/Reading, Social Studies, and Science teachers. 

The teachers were then given a survey to complete. Teacher information was obtained for 4,509 students of 6,350 

in the Cohort 1 sample. Response rates by treatment/control group are not shown, as this would result in teachers 

being counted more than once (as students from multiple treatment/control groups can have the same sixth-grade 

teacher). 
E.6 

TABLE E.2 

STUDENT SAMPLE 

Year 1, Cohort 1

 Pretest Sample 

Transferred in 

before January 1, 

2007 Total Samplea 

Total 6,085 265 6,350 

Combined Treatment Group 4,761 222 4,983 

Project CRISS 1,241 78 1,319 

ReadAbout 1,205 41 1,246 

Reading for Knowledge 1,157 34 1,191 

Read for Real 1,158 69 1,227 

Control Group 1,324 43 1,367 

Year 2, Cohort 2

 Pretest Sample 

Transferred in 

before January 1, 

2008 Total Samplea 

Total 4,076 68 4,142 

Combined Treatment Group 2,900 48 2,948 

Project CRISS 1,172 30 1,201 

ReadAbout 1,101 10 1,108 

Read for Real 627 8 639 

Control Group 1,176 20 1,194 

a

The total number of students in the study sample includes students from the first and second columns. In particular, 

the sample includes students in study schools as of January 1 and for whom parental consent was obtained. 

Students who transferred out of their school district after January but before follow-up testing remained part of the 

sample (about 450 in Cohort 1, and about 400 in Cohort 2).
E.7 

TABLE E.3a 

STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, PRETEST 

Year 1 

Cohort 1, Fall 2006 

 Total Number Tested 

Response Ratea

(Percentage) 

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed 

Test Who Also 

Took the Other 

Pretestb

GRADE 

Total 6,349 6,010 95 99.6 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 4,708 94 99.6 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,233 93 99.4 

ReadAbout 1,245 1,186 95 99.7 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 1,138 96 99.7 

Read for Real 1,228 1,151 94 99.6 

Control Group 1,362 1,302 95 99.7 

TOSCRF 

Total 6,349 5,994 94 99.9 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 4,696 94 99.8 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,226 93 99.9 

ReadAbout 1,245 1,186 95 99.7 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 1,137 95 99.8 

Read for Real 1,228 1,147 93 99.9 

Control Group 1,362 1,298 95 100.0 

Year 2 

Cohort 2, Fall 2007 

 Total Number Tested 

Response Rate 

(Percentage)c

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed 

Test Who Also 

Took the Other 

Pretestd 

GRADE 

Total 4,142 4,036 97 99.8 

Combined Treatment Group 2,948 2,871 97 99.7 

Project CRISS 1,201 1,158 96 99.7 

ReadAbout 1,108 1,090 98 99.9 

Read for Real 639 623 98 99.5 

Control Group 1,194 1,165 97 99.8 

TOSCRF 

Total 4,142 4,026 97 99.8 

Combined Treatment Group 2,948 2,863 97 99.7 

Project CRISS 1,201 1,154 96 99.7 

ReadAbout 1,108 1,089 98 99.9 

Read for Real 639 620 97 99.5 

Control Group 1,194 1,163 97 99.8 
Table E.3a (continued) 

 

E.8 

a

The percentage of Cohort 1 students tested at pretest is based on the total sample, although about 265 students included in the sample 

transferred into participating schools after the pretest was completed. Of the students in the sample at the time of the pretest, 99 percent 

completed the GRADE and the TOSCRF. 

b

The GRADE and the TOSCRF were administered on the same day, so nearly all students who completed one pretest also completed the

other pretest. However, a small number of students completed only one test: of those who completed the pretest GRADE, 99.6 percent 

also completed the TOSCRF; of those who completed the TOSCRF, 99.9 percent also completed the pretest GRADE. 

c

The percentage of Cohort 2 students tested at pretest is based on the total sample, although about 68 students included in the sample 

transferred into participating schools after the pretest was completed. Of the students in the sample at the pretest testing, 99 percent 

completed the GRADE and the TOSCRF. 

d

The GRADE and the TOSCRF were administered on the same day, so nearly all students who completed one pretest test also completed 

the other pretest. However, a small number of students completed only one test: of those who completed the pretest GRADE, 99.8

percent also completed the TOSCRF; of those who completed the TOSCRF, 99.8 percent also completed the pretest GRADE. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 
E.9 

TABLE E.3b 

STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, POST-TEST 

Year 1 

Cohort 1, Spring 2007 

 Total 

Number 

Tested 

Response Rate 

(Percentage)a

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed 

Test Who Also 

Took the Other 

Post-Testb

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed Test 

Who Also Took the 

Pretest GRADEc

GRADE 

Total 6,349 5,573 88 98.5 84 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 4,394 88 98.4 84 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,154 87 98.4 83 

ReadAbout 1,245 1,095 88 99.1 85 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 1,067 90 98.0 87 

Read for Real 1,228 1,078 88 98.0 84 

Control Group 1,362 1,179 86 98.8 83 

ETS 

Total 6,349 5,512 87 99.6 83 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 4,344 87 99.5 83 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,139 86 99.7 82 

ReadAbout 1,245 1,089 87 99.6 84 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 1,051 88 99.5 85 

Read for Real 1,228 1,065 87 99.2 82 

Control Group 1,362 1,168 85 99.7 83 

Year 2 

Cohort 2, Spring 2008 

 Total 

Number 

Tested 

Response Rate 

(Percentage)d

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed 

Test Who Also 

Took the Other 

Post-Teste

Percentage Who 

Took the Listed Test 

Who Also Took the 

Pretest GRADEf

GRADE 

Total 4,142 3,665 88 99.2 98 

Combined Treatment Group 2,948 2,604 88 99.0 98 

Project CRISS 1,201 1,056 88 98.6 97 

ReadAbout 1,108 994 89 99.3 98 

Read for Real 639 554 87 99.5 98 

Control Group 1,194 1,061 89 99.6 98 

ETS 

Total 4,142 3,644 88 99.8 98 

Combined Treatment Group 2,948 2,587 88 99.7 98 

Project CRISS 1,201 1,045 87 99.6 97 

ReadAbout 1,108 989 89 99.8 98 

Read for Real 639 553 87 99.6 98 

Control Group 1,194 1,057 88 100.0 99 
Table E.3b (continued) 

 

E.10 

a

The percentage of Cohort 1 students tested at follow up is based on the total sample, although about 450 of those students had 

transferred out of their school district before the follow-up tests. Of the students who had not transferred out of their district, about 94 

percent completed the post-tests. 

b

The follow-up GRADE and ETS tests were administered on consecutive days to Cohort 1 students. Nearly all students who completed

one test also completed the other test. However, a small number of students completed only one test: of those who completed the posttest GRADE, 98.5 percent also completed the ETS test; of those who completed the ETS test, 99.6 percent also completed the post-test 

GRADE. 

c

Some Cohort 1 students transferred into study schools after the pretest was completed, and some in-sample students transferred out of 

study schools before the follow-up test was administered. Eighty-four percent of the students completed both the pretest and post-test 

GRADE, and 83 percent completed both the pretest GRADE and the ETS test. 

d

The percentage of Cohort 2 students tested at follow up is based on the total sample, although about 400 of those students had 

transferred out of their school district before the follow-up tests. Of the students eligible for testing, about 99 percent completed the 

post-test. 

e

The follow-up GRADE and ETS tests were administered on consecutive days to Cohort 2 students. Nearly all students who completed

one test also completed the other test. However, a small number of students completed only one test: of those who completed the posttest GRADE, 99.2 percent also completed the ETS test; of those who completed the ETS test, 99.8 percent also completed the post-test 

GRADE. 

f

Some Cohort 2 students transferred into study schools after the pretest was completed, and some in-sample students transferred out of 

study schools before the follow-up test was administered. Ninety-eight percent of the students completed both the pretest and post-test 

GRADE, and 98 percent completed both the pretest GRADE and the ETS test. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. 
E.11 

At follow up for Cohort 1 students (spring 2008), 76 percent of students completed the 

GRADE follow-up test and 75 percent of students completed the ETS follow-up test (Table 

E.3c). Ninety-eight percent of students who completed the GRADE follow-up test also 

completed the ETS follow-up test, and 99 percent of students who completed the ETS follow-up 

test also completed the GRADE follow-up test. 

All students who completed follow-up tests were included in the impact analysis. The 

proportion of students in each experimental condition with follow-up test scores is reported in 

Table G.2. 

Table E.4 shows the classroom observation sample and response rates, and Table E.5 shows 

the treatment classrooms in the fidelity observation sample and response rates. Table E.6 shows 

response rates on the teacher surveys that collected data on students’ use of informational text 

and teachers’ allocation of time in the school day. 
E.12 

TABLE E.3c 

STUDENT TEST SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES, FOLLOW UP 

Year 2 

Cohort 1, Follow Up, Spring 2008 

 Total Number Tested 

Response Rate 

(Percentage)a

Percentage 

Who Took the 

Listed Test 

Who Also Took 

the Other 

Follow-Up Test 

GRADE 

Total 6,349 4,850 76 98 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 3,828 77 98 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,060 80 98 

ReadAbout 1,245 967 78 98 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 899 75 98 

Read for Real 1,228 902 74 99 

Control Group 1,362 1,022 75 98 

ETS 

Total 6,349 4,778 75 99 

Combined Treatment Group 4,987 3,774 76 99 

Project CRISS 1,319 1,037 79 99 

ReadAbout 1,245 955 77 99 

Reading for Knowledge 1,195 885 74 99 

Read for Real 1,228 897 73 99 

Control Group 1,362 1,044 76 96 

a

The percentage of students tested at the second follow up is based on the total Year 1 sample, although about 950 of 

those students were ineligible for follow-up testing, primarily because they had either transferred out of the district 

(415) or their enrollment status was unknown by the school district (473). Of the students who were located and 

eligible for testing, about 90 percent completed the follow-up tests. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. 
E.13 

TABLE E.4 

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES 

Classrooms 

Total Number Observed 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

Year 1, Cohort 1 

Totala 270 264 98 

Combined Treatment Group 213 207 97 

Project CRISS 56 52 93 

ReadAbout 50 49 98 

Reading for Knowledge 53 52 98 

Read for Real 54 54 100 

Control Group 57 57 100 

Year 2, Cohort 2 

Totala 190 175 92 

Combined Treatment Group 135 126 93 

Project CRISS 56 51 91 

ReadAbout 46 46 100 

Read for Real 33 29 88 

Control Group 55 49 89 

a

The number of classrooms shown in this table differs from the number of teachers shown in Table E.1a because 

some teachers taught more than one class.
E.14 

TABLE E.5 

FIDELITY OBSERVATION SAMPLE AND RESPONSE RATES 

Teachers 

Totala Number Observed 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

Year 1, Cohort 1 

Combined Treatment Groupb 218 209 96 

Project CRISS 54 54 100 

ReadAbout 53 53 100 

Reading for Knowledge 54 45 83 

Read for Real 57 57 100 

Year 2, Cohort 2 

Combined Treatment Group 130 114 88 

Project CRISS 53 46 87 

ReadAbout 46 43 93 

Read for Real 31 25 81 

a

The number of teachers shown in this table differs from the number shown in Table E.4 because this table focuses 

on number of teachers, while Table E.4 focuses on number of classrooms. 

b

One fidelity observation was conducted for each study teacher. The number of teachers shown in this table differs 

from the number shown in Table E.1a because the Teacher Survey was conducted at the start of the 2006–2007 

school year, while the fidelity observations were conducted later in the year (after some teacher changes had 

occurred). 
E.15 

TABLE E.6 

RESPONSE RATES FOR YEAR 2 TEACHER FORMS, GRADE FIVE TEACHERS 

Teachers 

Total 

Number 

Completing Form 

Response Rate 

(Percentage) 

Students’ Use of Informational Text 

Total 184 156 85 

Combined Treatment Group 130 109 84 

Project CRISS 53 46 87 

ReadAbout 46 41 89 

Read for Real 31 22 71 

Control Group 54 47 87 

Teachers’ Allocation of Time to Students’ Daily Schedulesa

Total 209 187 89 

Combined Treatment Group 151 135 89 

Project CRISS 56 50 89 

ReadAbout 52 46 88 

Read for Real 43 39 91 

Control Group 58 52 90 

a

The number of teachers shown in this pane of the table differs from the number shown in the top pane because this 

form was administered to all grade five teachers who were using, or had used, CRISS, Read for Real, or ReadAbout 

during Year 2 of the study, or who used one of these treatments during Year 1 and were still teaching at a school 

where we were testing students in spring 2008. The numbers in the top pane represent only those teachers who were 

teaching fifth grade in Year 2 of the study. 
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX F 

CREATION AND RELIABILITY OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION AND TEACHER 

SURVEY MEASURES 
This page is intentionally left blank.
F.3 

 

A. ASSESSING INTER-RATER RELIABILITY 

An important part of the analysis of data collected from classroom observations is an 

assessment of the reliability of the observation data across the staff conducting the observations. 

In the study’s second year, data from 30 percent of classrooms are available for these 

calculations. Twenty percent of observations were randomly chosen to be reliability 

observations, which means that a second observer was randomly chosen to observe 

simultaneously with the observer assigned to that observation. The remaining 10 percent of the 

observations come from pairings of a master trainer with each observer at least once during the 

first two weeks of observation. This allows for a comparison of the data collected by the two 

observers during these observations. 

 

In total, the study team had data from 70 pairs of observations that could be used to assess 

reliability of the observation data. Of these, 50 were pairs of regular field observation staff. An 

additional 20 were pairs in which a regular field observer did one observation and an expert 

observer acting in a quality control role did the second. 

The inter-rater reliability of all of the scales in the study’s second year was over 0.94 (0.94 

to 0.98). Pearson correlations of the scale scores based on the two observers’ tallies were 

calculated for the three study scales. The inter-rater reliability of the Traditional Interaction 

scale, the Reading Strategy Guidance scale, and the Classroom Management scale was 0.98, 

0.97, and 0.94, respectively. 

 

Inter-rater reliability for individual items from the classroom observation form was also 

analyzed. We calculated reliability by item by measuring the exact match percent agreement 

between observers in both types of pairs (reliability and quality control, during each interval). 

This method involves calculating agreements and disagreements tally by tally, to determine the 

exact match. That is, if observer one had six tallies and observer two had four tallies in the same 

cell, we counted four agreements and two disagreements. This measure of agreement thus takes 

into account the degree of variation between observers’ tallies. 

The calculation of inter-rater reliability was conducted in a way designed to avoid inflating 

reliability scores simply because the target behaviors were unobserved. Because there were many 

zeros, representing the “absence” of the indicated instructional behaviors, there was a possibility 

that reliability could be exaggerated by inclusion of zeros in reliability calculations, because 

reliability would be 100 percent if neither observer recorded a tally. To address this issue, we 

removed any intervals that had no tallies from the reliability calculations. 

The inter-rater reliability (as measured by percent agreement between observers) for 

individual items from the classroom observation form in the study’s second year ranged from 85 

to 100 percent. The total percent agreement across all items was 92 percent (see Table F.1).81

81Appendix I shows key descriptive statistics (including means and standard deviations) for the full set of items 

from the classroom observation and fidelity instruments. 
F.4 

TABLE F.1 

PERCENT AGREEMENT RELIABILITY FOR ACTIVE INTERVALS, BY ITEM 

Agreements of 

Observed Items 

Agreements of 

Unobserved Items Disagreements 

Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 

Comprehension Items 

Modeling and Thinking Aloud 1A Background knowledge 3 0 408 277 1 0 

2A Text structure 1 10 411 271 0 1 

3A Various comprehension strategies 0 4 408 271 4 4 

4A Generating questions 1 2 410 274 1 0 

5A Text features 1 0 410 276 1 0 

Total 6 16 2,047 1,369 7 5 

Explaining/Reviewing 1B Background knowledge 160 162 354 233 47 21 

2B Text structure 111 75 355 242 44 21 

3B Various comprehension strategies 443 286 321 174 126 63 

4B Generating questions 96 73 326 223 45 21 

5B Text features 78 85 344 228 34 39 Total 888 681 1,700 1,100 296 165 

Comprehension Student Practice 1C Background knowledge 301 294 348 227 38 21 

2C Text structure 169 126 356 235 49 25 

3C Various comprehension strategies 614 459 246 155 134 91 

4C Generating questions 161 138 287 206 78 34 

5C Text features 90 137 349 222 39 30 Total 1,335 1,154 1,586 1,045 338 201 

Vocabulary Items 

Interactive Teaching 6 Justifying responses 76 69 336 236 60 25 

7 Higher-order questioning 388 278 228 176 171 83 

8 Elaborating/clarifying the text 533 394 188 140 190 78 
Table F.1 (continued) 

F.5 

Agreements of 

Observed Items 

Agreements of 

Unobserved Items Disagreements 

Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Total 997 741 752 552 421 186 Teaching VocabularyV1 Providing definitions 288 173 227 173 122 46 

V2 Providing examples/elaborations 488 285 213 160 131 63 

V3 Providing visuals 136 83 324 234 64 26 

V4 Teaching context clues 38 25 376 255 18 10 

Total 950 566 1,140 822 335 145 

Vocabulary Student Practice V5 Using knowledge of words 757 504 190 129 190 82 

V6 Using context clues 30 33 390 251 16 11 

Total 787 537 580 380 206 93 

Items in Each Area 

Comprehension 3,226 2,592 6,085 4,066 1,062 557 Vocabulary 1,737 1,103 1,720 1,202 541 238 

Total 4,963 3,695 7,805 5,268 1,603 795 

Items Contained in the Classroom Observation Scales 

Traditional Interaction 3,159 2,277 3,778 2,633 1,158 548 Reading Strategy Guidance 1,876 1,477 3,704 2,447 631 363 SOURCE: Classroom observations. NOTE: Inter-rater reliability calculations were based only on active intervals, which are those intervals during which the teacher 

on informational text and at least one teaching practice on the ERC form was observed by either member of the observe

lesson on informational text but was not observed to be using any of the teaching practices on the observation measincluded. 

aReliability by item was calculated by measuring the exact match percent agreement between reliability (and quality control) obse

interval. This method involves calculating agreements and disagreements tally by tally, to determine the exact match. That is, if ObsObserver 2 had four tallies in the same cell, this was counted as four agreements and two disagreements. 

ERC = Expository Reading Comprehension. 
F.6 

 

B. ASSESSING CRITERION VALIDITY 

Another important part of the analysis of classroom observation data is an examination of 

the criterion validity of the study’s classroom observation scales. Criterion validity was 

measured by the extent to which these scales, measuring the incidence of teacher behaviors, are 

correlated with students’ scores on reading comprehension tests. Achieving a high degree of 

validity for a scale suggests that affecting that scale has the potential to improve student 

achievement. 

To examine this issue, we measured the extent to which the classroom observation scales are 

related to the study’s key student test score outcomes in the study’s second year. We conducted 

this analysis using classroom observation scales based on averages of activities across the 

observation intervals. We accounted for clustering of students within schools in calculating pvalues, but we did not account for multiple comparisons because this is a purely exploratory 

analysis. 

We found that one of the scales is positively and statistically significantly related to three of 

the four student test scores included in the study. The Classroom Management scale is 

statistically significantly related to the composite test scores (correlation = 0.19, p-value = 0.01); 

the GRADE scores (correlation = 0.17, p-value = 0.03); and the science reading comprehension 

assessment (correlation = 0.20, p-value = 0.01). We found no statistically significant relationship 

between any of the study’s test scores and the Traditional Interaction or Reading Strategy 

scales.82 

C. CREATION AND RELIABILITY OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES 

The ERC observation form allowed the study team to collect consistent data from fifth-grade 

classrooms that make it possible to describe and compare teachers’ instructional practices in 

different treatment and control groups and across cohorts. In the ERC observation form, 

observers recorded the number of times treatment and control group teachers engaged in specific 

teaching behaviors. There were up to 294 opportunities to record observed teaching practices (28 

practices assessed in each of up to 10 intervals, plus a set of 14 items assessed once during an 

observation). Therefore, the classroom observation data needed to be condensed into a 

manageable number of variables for analysis so that we can present a coherent, summary picture 

of teachers’ behavior. This appendix describes the process the study team used to obtain this 

more manageable number of variables. 

We developed summary scales for groupings of specific items for Parts I and II of the ERC 

instrument. Part I of the instrument focused on interactive teaching practices, vocabulary 

instruction, and comprehension strategy instruction; Part II focused on classroom management 

and student engagement. The development of scales was done by implementing preliminary 

exploratory factor analysis, conducting a review of item content, and implementing item 

82Results presented in Chapter V differ from those presented here because Chapter V analyses combined the 

cohort 1 and 2 samples whereas the results presented here are only for cohort 2. 
F.7 

 

response theory (IRT) scaling (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994; Lord 1980; Wright and Stone 

1979; and Lord and Novick 1968). 

The goal of the factor analysis was to identify preliminary groupings of items for Part I of 

the ERC instrument that appeared to represent key underlying dimensions. Any of the Part I 

items that were weakly related to the identified underlying dimensions were dropped from 

further psychometric analyses. This process ultimately resulted in three groupings of items for 

Part I. 

A review of item content was used to identify groupings of items for Part II of the ERC 

instrument, due to the smaller number of items and more distinct content groupings of items in 

this section of the instrument. Two groupings of items for Part II were specified based on the 

thematic similarities of content shared between the items for each of the two groups. In total, 

across Parts I and II of the ERC, five groupings of items were identified.83

The goal of the IRT scaling was to estimate reliable and valid scores for teachers on scales 

that represent the underlying dimensions for the respective item groupings in Parts I and II of the 

ERC instrument. The data preparation, IRT scaling process, evaluation of IRT model fit, 

evaluation of reliability and validity of scores, and information on how to interpret the scores are 

described in detail below. 

Data Preparation. To support the most-valid IRT item calibration and score estimation, we 

conducted additional data processing of the items in each of the five groupings. The tallies for 

items of Part I for each interval were averaged across the 10-minute intervals for each classroom 

within a single day. We then evaluated the frequency distributions of each item and created 

meaningful categories representing the extent to which behaviors were observed (such as low, 

medium, and high).84 The category boundaries were determined based on investigation of the 

frequency distributions for each item. 

Because the items of Part II of the ERC instrument have their own specified rating scales, 

there was no need to create categories for those items. Therefore, data for the items of Part II 

were analyzed according to these existing rating scales. 

IRT Scaling Process. For each of these five groups of items, IRT scaling was used to 

develop variables measuring the underlying latent dimensions. The IRT model features a 

multivariate logistic regression of the probability for the demonstration (or level of response) on 

each item in a grouping (such as low, medium, or high) on the latent dimension as an underlying 

continuous variable, which was estimated by way of an iterative numerical process. The joint 

83During the IRT scaling process, another dimension was specified in order to account for two items within 

Part II of the ERC that shared a common question stem. The additional dimension was specified to avoid estimation 

bias (it was not specified for use in the study’s examination of the relationship between impacts and teacher 

practices). 

84To permit sensitivity testing of the scales used in the analysis, we also created these categories based on sums 

of observed tallies across the 10-minute intervals for the day’s observations. IRT scaling was done for data based on 

sums of tallies for items across the intervals, as well as averages of tallies for items across the intervals. 
F.8 

 

probabilities for the levels of demonstrations across the full set of items within a grouping, 

conditional on the underlying continuous variable used to represent the latent dimension, are 

used to estimate scores as proficiency estimates on the scale for the respective latent dimension. 

These scores quantify the levels of estimated proficiency for demonstrating the underlying skill 

for each latent dimension. 

Scores for the five scales (that is, one scale for each of the five groupings of items) were 

estimated for all classrooms using a specific IRT technique. IRT item calibration and score 

estimation was done using the Multidimensional Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model 

(Adams et al. 1997).85 This model was used to specify a multidimensional generalization of the 

Partial Credit Model (Masters and Wright 1997; Masters 1982), and is the core model of the 

software ACER ConQuest (Wu et al. 2007). 

This modeling approach permitted us to properly address the ways in which the ERC items 

were interrelated because, as Adams et al. (1997) explain, the Multidimensional Random 

Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model can address two kinds of multidimensionality of 

assessment data: between-item multidimensionality and within-item multidimensionality. 

Between-item multidimensionality occurs when particular items load only on a single scale, but 

there are multiple scales due to the presence of multiple underlying dimensions. Within-item 

multidimensionality occurs when particular items load on more than one scale due to crossloadings. The ERC data on this study exhibit both between-item and within-item 

multidimensionality. 

Items in the scales had two to four categories for the levels of demonstration, which affected 

how they were treated during IRT scaling. Items with only two categories (low and high) were 

treated as dichotomous items for IRT item calibration, while items with more than two categories 

(low, medium, and high, for example) were treated as polychotomous items. Data for 

dichotomous and polychotomous items for scales were analyzed together during the IRT 

analysis; this was possible because the IRT software used permits analysis for scales that have 

mixtures of item types, even when the numbers of categories for items differ. 

The model used to calculate scale scores assumes independence of the data points that 

contribute to the estimation of its parameters. Since 124 fifth-grade teachers were observed in 

both the first and second years of the study, we were concerned about item response correlation 

(i.e., for a given teacher participating in Years 1 and 2 of the study, the level of response for a 

particular item [or items] in Year 1 might be similar to the level of response for the same item [or 

items] in Year 2). To address that concern and to make the scale scores comparable across 

classrooms observed in Years 1 and 2, the study team fixed the IRT model parameters (item 

difficulty, variances for the latent distributions, and covariances between latent dimensions) to 

85Using the Multidimensional Random Coefficients Multinomial Logit Model permitted (1) explicit modeling 

of the multidimensionality of the item data during analysis, facilitating proper estimation for the statistical 

characteristics of items, even as they contribute to multiple domains; (2) proper model specification when different 

items share common stems, necessitating additional dimensions to control for residual correlations between such 

items in order to avoid estimation bias; and (3) Bayesian estimators for both item and score parameter estimates, and 

an IRT-based reliability estimate for each scale overall and for the score of each classroom. 
F.9 

 

the levels estimated using the data from the observations conducted in the first year only. Based 

on this model, scale scores were then calculated for classrooms in the study’s second year. Since 

the scores in Year 2 are estimated on the same calibrated scales as the scores in Year 1, we can 

make comparisons between the sets of scores from the two years. 

Evaluation of IRT Model Fit. Overall, the IRT model fit the data well. Based on the 

guideline of 0.5 to 1.7 for reasonable infit and outfit mean square values for items of a clinical 

observation instrument (Wright and Linacre 1994), the scaling process resulted in acceptable 

overall model fit for each item contained in three of the scales we constructed (the Traditional 

Interaction scale, the Reading Strategy Guidance scale, and the Classroom Management scale) 

(see Table F.2).86 Two additional scales that were created in this process were not used in the 

study’s analyses in either year of the study due to concerns over their reliability or inter-rater 

reliability based on the IRT model parameter estimations conducted in the first study year. For 

one of these scales, reliability was the concern (with values of .43 for the version of the scale 

based on averages of teacher practice tallies and .58 for the version of the scale based on sums of 

tallies). For the other scale, inter-rater reliability was the concern (with values of .69 for the 

version of the scale based on averages of tallies and .73 for the version based on sums of tallies). 

Additional statistical tests provide support for the use of the three reliable scales in the 

analysis. Based on data from classrooms observed in the first year of the study, the separation 

reliability estimate for item parameter estimation is 0.99, indicating a high level of reliability for 

the estimation of item parameters, given that a value of 1.0 represents, in theory, the maximum 

possible value for this parameter. In addition, the Chi-square test of item parameter equality 

based on the Year 1 observation data is statistically significant (χ

2

 = 5233.70, df = 34, p < .05). 

For the scale scores computed for the classrooms observed in the study’s second year, separation 

reliability estimation and the Chi-square test of item parameter equality cannot be calculated 

because the parameters of the IRT model were fixed to the levels estimated using the data from 

the observations conducted in the first year only. Taken together, and since the same parameter 

estimates were used in constructing scale scores in Years 1 and 2, these statistics indicate that the 

IRT model provides a good fit for the observation data from both years of the study. The 

statistics also indicate that items function well enough to ensure acceptable levels of 

measurement precision at various points along the scales. 

Reliability and Validity of Scores. The reliability of the scales based on classrooms 

observed in the study’s second year is 0.65 for Traditional Interaction, 0.63 for Reading Strategy 

Guidance, and 0.86 for Classroom Management (Table F.3). 

There is also evidence supporting the validity of the scales. First, the content of the items in 

Part I was based on experimental research from small-scale studies that investigated sound 

practices for reading comprehension and vocabulary instruction, and the content of items in Part 

II was based on a theoretical framework that identified some of the most-essential practices for 

classroom instruction in general, and the quality of classroom management in particular. Second, 

the content of the items in each scale is generally homogenous. Third, the empirical findings 

86Fit at the level of each category for all items for the three scales was also examined. In general, results from 

this examination showed acceptable IRT model fit for the categories of all the items. 
F.10 

TABLE F.2 

ITEM RESPONSE MODEL DIFFICULTY PARAMETERS, STANDARD ERRORS, OUTFIT AND INFIT STATISTICS, 

AND CORRECTED ITEM-TOTAL CORRELATIONS FOR ITEMS OF EACH SCALE 

Item Difficultya

Standard 

Errorb

Outfit Mean 

Squarec

Infit Mean 

Squared

Corrected 

Item-Total 

Correlatione

Item 

Year 

1 

Year 

2f 

Year 

1 

Year 

2f 

Year 

1 

Year 

2 

Year 

1 

Year 

2 

Year 

1 

Year 

2 

Traditional Interaction

• Comprehension Item 4 505.34 505.34 0.49 n.a. 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.05 0.31 0.37 

Comprehension Item 4C 502.05 502.05 0.42 n.a. 1.14 1.07 1.13 1.06 0.24 0.39 

Comprehension Item 5B 506.64 506.64 0.53 n.a. 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.96 0.30 0.38 

Comprehension Item 5C 506.16 506.16 0.52 n.a. 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.06 0.22 0.34 

Comprehension Item 6C 503.79 503.79 0.43 n.a. 1.29 1.48 1.18 1.23 0.14 0.08 

Comprehension Item 7C 503.70 503.70 0.48 n.a. 1.06 1.24 1.09 1.21 0.41 0.33 

Comprehension Item 8 506.79 506.79 0.89 n.a. 1.06 1.09 1.05 1.09 0.37 0.28 

Vocabulary Item 1 503.53 503.53 0.85 n.a. 1.26 1.18 1.17 1.13 0.25 0.17 

Vocabulary Item 2 512.29 512.29 1.03 n.a. 0.86 0.93 0.87 0.91 0.38 0.43 

Vocabulary Item 3 511.31 511.31 1.03 n.a. 0.89 1.03 0.87 0.98 0.43 0.28 

Vocabulary Item 4 511.56 511.56 0.67 n.a. 1.02 1.06 1.05 1.08 0.25 0.21 

Vocabulary Item 5 507.40 507.40 0.93 n.a. 0.86 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.31 0.26 

Vocabulary Item 6 519.29 519.29 1.29 n.a. 1.24 1.34 1.15 1.23 0.17 0.21 

Reading Strategy Guidance

Comprehension Item 2B 516.85 516.85 1.18 n.a. 0.92 1.15 1.01 1.17 0.32 0.21 

Comprehension Item 2C 514.19 514.19 1.09 n.a. 1.10 1.33 1.14 1.33 0.24 0.13 

• Comprehension Item 

3A 529.36 529.36 2.51 n.a. 1.22 1.10 1.07 1.03 0.14 0.14 

Comprehension Item 3B 510.62 510.62 0.99 n.a. 0.82 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.44 0.16 

Comprehension Item 3C 505.89 505.89 0.91 n.a. 0.97 1.03 1.00 1.04 0.37 0.06 

Comprehension Item 4B 505.34 505.34 0.49 n.a. 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.05 0.35 0.36 

Comprehension Item 4C 502.05 502.05 0.42 n.a. 1.14 1.07 1.13 1.06 0.26 0.34 

Comprehension Item 5B 506.64 506.64 0.53 n.a. 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.96 0.43 0.28 

Comprehension Item 5C 506.16 506.16 0.52 n.a. 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.06 0.38 0.24 

Comprehension Item 6C 503.79 503.79 0.43 n.a. 1.29 1.48 1.18 1.23 0.23 0.09 

Vocabulary Item 4 511.56 511.56 0.67 n.a. 1.02 1.06 1.05 1.08 0.14 0.11 

Classroom Management

Part 2, Item 10 471.92 471.92 1.36 n.a. 0.97 1.01 1.00 1.01 0.76 0.76 

Part 2, Item 11 465.29 465.29 1.44 n.a. 0.90 0.95 1.11 1.15 0.76 0.80 

Part 2, Item 13 473.41 473.41 1.05 n.a. 0.93 0.92 1.16 1.04 0.74 0.78 

Part 2, Item 14 477.85 477.85 1.00 n.a. 0.71 1.25 0.98 1.03 0.78 0.80 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

a

Item difficulty provides a sense of the extent to which different behaviors will be observed in classrooms. Classroom scores and 

item difficulty parameter estimates are expressed together on the same scale, so that teachers (classrooms) that are more likely to 

exhibit behaviors for particular items will score above the respective difficulty levels for those items, and teachers (classrooms) 

that are less likely to exhibit behaviors for the items will score below the difficulty levels for the items. 

b

The standard error is the estimation error of the item difficulty parameter. 

c

Outfit mean square is the average of the standardized residual variance for the item without any weighting (thus, it is sensitive to 

outliers). The expected value is 1.0, with values less than .5 and greater than 1.7 considered to indicate problematic items for a 

clinical observation measure (Wright and Linacre 1994). 
Table F.2 (continued) 

 

F.11 

d

Infit mean square is the average of the standardized residual variance after weighting for each individual residual variance, so 

that unexpected responses close to the item’s difficulty are given greater weight. The expected value is 1.0, with values less than 

.5 and greater than 1.7 considered to indicate problematic items for a clinical observation measure (Wright and Linacre 1994). 

e

Corrected item-total correlation is the correlation between responses on an item and the total raw score that is calculated using 

the remaining set of items for the scale in order to correct for spuriousness. 

f

The item difficulty parameter estimate in Year 2 was constrained to its corresponding value from Year 1; therefore, it has no 

associated standard error. 

n.a. = not applicable. 
F.12 

TABLE F.3 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES SCALE SCORES 

Scale 

Number of 

Classrooms Reliability Mean

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum

Year 1 

Traditional Interaction 261 .70 500.00 6.53 486.37 517.38 

Reading Strategy 

Guidance 261 .72 500.09 7.42 483.37 518.18 

Classroom Management 261 .83 500.46 31.05 404.87 562.40 

Year 2 

Traditional Interaction 173 .65 499.16 5.82 484.03 512.78 

Reading Strategy 

Guidance 173 .63 501.10 6.12 479.59 513.48 

Classroom Management 173 .86 499.23 32.30 408.40 550.55 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 
F.13 

demonstrate an acceptable level of IRT model fit for the items in each scale. Finally, the 

multidimensional IRT model specification posits that there are multiple latent dimensions that 

explain the statistical relationships between all possible pairs of items for the respective scales, 

and the extent to which the model fits the data (as indicated by the item fit statistics) provides 

supporting evidence of the presence of these latent dimensions/components. 

Interpreting the Scale Scores. Figures F.1a through F.3 provide a way to interpret the 

levels of the scale scores for the classrooms observed in the study’s second year. In particular, 

they provide a way to link a particular scale score to the ordinal categories that summarize the 

frequency with which teachers engaged in the practices underlying the three scales. For example, 

for the Traditional Interaction scale, Figure F.1a shows how 6 of the 13 items contained in the 

scale link to the levels of the scale scores. (Figure F.1b shows how the remaining 7 items in the 

scale link to the scale scores.) For example, a scale score of 560 corresponds to teachers 

explaining how to generate questions .56 to 2 times on average during each 10-minute interval 

(first bar) while that same score corresponds to teachers asking questions that go beyond a literal 

level 1.4 to 6.22 times during a 10-minute interval (last bar). It is important to note that teachers' 

actual scale score values do not vary as widely as the 400 to 600 range implied by the figures (as 

shown in the maximum and minimum values in Table F.3), because the actual scale scores 

reflect multiple teacher practices while each bar in Figures F.1a through F.3 represents just one

teacher practice and the scale score that is possible based on that one practice. For example, in 

theory, a teacher could have scored as high as 600 (or as low as 400) on the Traditional 

Interaction scale, but none did so due to the levels of observed behaviors on all of the practices 

comprising that scale. 

D. CREATION OF TEACHER EFFICACY AND SCHOOL PROFESSIONAL 

CULTURE SCALES 

We used data from the Teacher Survey administered to fifth-grade teachers in the study’s 

first year to construct a Teacher Efficacy scale and a School Professional Culture scale. 

Teacher Efficacy Scale 

Twelve items from the Teacher Survey were used to construct this scale (items borrowed 

with permission from Hoy and Woolfolk, 1993). These items are on a 0 to 5 Likert scale and 

correspond to teacher self-reports on attitudes and beliefs on student engagement (4 items), 

instructional strategies (4 items), and classroom management (4 items). To create the teacher 

efficacy scale, we averaged the responses to the 12 items for each teacher, so the original scale of 

0 to 5 was preserved. A higher score on the scale represents more-positive teacher perceptions of 

their efficacy. 

The reliability of the Teacher Efficacy scales exceeded 0.79 (0.79 to 0.90). The alpha for the 

overall Teacher Efficacy scale was 0.90, and the reliability of the Teacher Efficacy subscales was 

0.83, 0.79, and 0.85, for efficacy in student engagement, efficacy in instructional strategies, and 

efficacy in classroom management, respectively (Table F.4). 
F.14 400 420 440 460 480 500

520540560580600

Teacher Explains How to 

Generate Questions

Students Practice 

Generating Questions

Teacher Explains Text 

Features

Students Practice Using 

Text Features

Teacher Asks Studen

Justify Response

Scale Scores

Control MeanTreatment Mean

FIGURE F.1a

LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE OBSERVED

AND TRADITIONAL INTERACTION SCALE SCORES, YEAR 2

0.19-0.56 0.19-0.57 0.18-0.69 0.18-0.69 0.18-0.40 

0-0.19 0-0.19 0-0.18 0-0.18 0-0.18 

0.56-2.00 0.57-5.33 0.69-2.18 0.69-2.45 0.40-2.29 
F.15 400 420 440 460 480

500520540560580600

Teacher Elaborates 

Concepts Before and 

After Reading

Teacher Provides 

Definition or 

Explanation

Teacher Provides 

Examples/Multiple 

Meanings

Teacher Uses 

Visuals/Pictures

Teacher Uses WordLearning Strategies Students Asked to Do Something Requiring 

Word Knowledge

Scale Scores

Control MeanTreatment Mean

FIGURE F.1b

LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE OBSERVED 

AND TRADITIONAL INTERACTION SCALE SCORES, YEAR 2

0-1.00 0-0.46 0-0.94 0-0.10 0-0.15 0-1.00 

1.00-2.00 0.46-0.92 0.94-2.00 0.10-0.70

0.15-0.69

1.00-2.44

2.00-7.17 0.92-4.40 2.00-6.67 0.70-4.83 0.69-1.71 2.44-8.00 
F.16 400 420 440 460 480

500520540560580600

Teacher Models Use of 

Strategies

Teacher Explains Text 

Structure

Students Practice Use of 

Text Structure

Teacher Explains Comp. 

Strategies

Students Practice Comp. 

Strategies

Teacher Explains How to 

Generate Questions

Students Practice 

Generating Questions

Teacher Explains Text 

Features

Students Practice Usin

Text Features

Scale Scores

FIGURE F.2

LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES PRACTICES WERE OBSERVED 

AND READING STRATEGY GUIDANCE SCALE SCORES, YEAR 2

0-1.00 0-0.17 0-0.18 0-0.90 0-1.00 0-0.19 0-0.19 0-0.18 

1.0-4.5

.17-1.0

1.0-1.5

.18-1.0 .90-2.9

1.0-10.5

.56-2.0

.19-.56

.57-5.33

.19-.57 .18-.69 .18-.67 

.69-2.19 .67-2.45 

0-0.18

1.0-2.82

2.9-7.0

Control Mean

Treatment Mean
FIGURE F.3 

LINK BETWEEN AVERAGE LIKERT-SCALE ITEM RATINGS AND SCALE SCORES FOR CL

MANAGEMENT, YEAR 2

F.17 400 420 440 460 480 500

520540560580600

Teacher Maximized 

Instruction Time

Teacher Managed 

Student Behavior

Student Engagement, 

First Half of Observation 

Session

Stude

Sec

O

Scale Scores

excellent good fair minimal/poor

Control Mean Treatment Mean
F.18 

TABLE F.4 

RELIABILITY OF THE TEACHER EFFICACY OVERALL SCALE AND SUBSCALES 

Scale 

Number 

of Items 

Coefficient 

Alpha Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Overall Teacher Efficacy 12 0.90 4.19 0.49 2.83 5.0 

Efficacy in Student Engagement 4 0.83 4.07 0.62 2.25 5.0 

Efficacy in Instructional 

Strategies 4 0.79 4.14 0.54 2.50 5.0 

Efficacy in Classroom 

Management 4 0.85 4.34 0.56 2.25 5.0 

SOURCE: Teacher Survey administered to fifth-grade teachers in Year 1 of the study. 
F.19 

School Professional Culture Scale 

Thirty he items 

correspond to teacher self-reports on attitudes and beliefs on reflective dialogue, perceptions 

ong p cc w ex w

mented in school, profess velo opportunities, and leadership and support. The 

0 to 10, a a highe re on t ale in es more-positive teacher 

perceptions of the professional culture in their school. 

onstructed using a Rasch rating-scale model in Winsteps (Linacre 2006). In 

 rating-scale model, sca scores constr by e ting t obabilit a 

specified response as a function of (1) each teacher’s ability level for the construct being 

em difficulty. In IRT analyses, ability corresponds to the level of the attitude 

ing measured, and ite rresponds to the prevalence of or likelihood of 

le. Most-prevalent 

ttitude ore 

difficult to endorse. 

In the rating scale model, the scores are usually rescaled to correspond to the original scale 

on the items in order to ease interpretation. For the School Professional Culture scale, the scores 

were rescaled to a 0 to 10 scale. The rescaled scores were used in the statistical analyses 

presented in this report. Item difficulties were also rescaled with the least difficult items having 

low values on the scale. The item difficulties and teacher scores are thus placed on a common 

scale and the items are expected to be ordered hierarchically along the difficulty continuum. 

Therefore, the way to interpret these scales is that teachers are more likely to endorse items with 

difficulty below their scale score and less likely to endorse items with difficulty above their scale 

score. Given that scores estimated on a limited number of responses are less reliable than scores 

with more ratings, if 50 percent or more of the items in a scale were missing, the score for that 

teacher was set to missing.87

Several statistical tests indicate that this scale and its six subscales (corresponding to the six 

categories of attitudes and beliefs described above) are reliable and valid measures. Person 

separation reliability, infit mean square, and item difficulty were produced to evaluate the 

reliability and validity of the scales. Person separation reliability, which is equivalent to 

Cronbach’s alpha and measures internal consistency of the scale, ranged from 0.66 to 0.87 for 

the overall scale and subscales (Table F.5). The infit mean square values for most of the items, 

which indicate whether the response items are consistent with the hierarchical ordering of the 

items, were close to 1, which suggests that most response patterns align with the hierarchical 

ordering of the items in the six subscales (Table F.6). Finally, the items in the six subscales were 

spread along the difficulty hierarchy, with item difficulty statistics ranging from 2.97 to 6.27. 

 

-five items from the Teacher Survey were used to construct this scale. T

about relationships am

imple

eers, a

ional de

ess to ne

pment 

ideas, perience ith changes being

range of this scale is nd r sco he sc dicat

This scale was c

the Rasch le were ucted stima he pr y of

measured and (2) it

or belief be m difficulty co

endorsing the attitude, belief, or behavior represented by each item in a sca

beliefs, a s, or behaviors are least difficult to endorse, while less-prevalent ones are m

87This occurred for only two teachers in the sample. 
F.20 

TABLE F.5 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND PERSON SEPARATION RELIABILITIES FOR THE OVERALL SCHOOL 

CULTURE SCALE AND SUBSCALES 

Scale 

Number 

of Items 

Person 

Separation 

Reliability 

Sample 

Size Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Over l School Culture 35 .87 258 al 5.69 .47 4.53 7.86 

Reflective Dialogue 4 .78 253 5.62 2.00 0 10 

Perceptions About 

Relationships Among Peers 6 .82 258 8.17 1.95 2.26 9.99 

Access to New Ideas 6 .75 258 5.04 1.30 2.21 10 

Experience of Change 3 .66 256 5.97 1.85 1.21 9.99 

Professional Development 

Oppo unities 9 rt .86 257 5.74 1.46 2.55 10 

Leadership and Support 7 .84 255 7.39 2.06 0 9.99 

SOURCE: Teacher Survey administered to fifth-grade teachers in Year 1 of the study. 
F.21 

Subscale/Item 

Infit Mean 

Squarea 

Item 

Difficultyb 

TABLE F.6 

PSYCHOMETRIC STATISTICS FOR SCHOOL CULTURE SUBSCALES 

Reflective Dialogue 

 

During the past school

colleagues about ... 

 year, how n have d con ions w

this school? .95 5.55

 of new curricul ? 1.06 6.02

assroom behavior? 1.25 4.11 

learn be .74 3.

ationships Am g Peers 

sagree or agree with eac the follo g ... 

s grade level trust each . .93 5.

e level to discuss feelings, worries, and frustrations 

.87 4.93

rs respect other teachers who ta e lead i e-leve

rts. .79 5.

grade level respect those re expe

r craf 4.90 

6e. To what extent do you feel respected by other teachers in this grade level? 1.42 4.30 

6f. How many teachers in this grade level really care about each other? 1.06 4.76 

Access to New Ideas 

How often have you ... 

7a. Taken courses at a college or university relative to improving your 

school? 1.41 4.91 

7b. Participated in a network with other teachers outside your school? .86 4.53 

7c. Discussed curriculum and instruction matters with an outside professional 

group or organization? .85 4.74 

7d. Attended professional development activities organized by your school 

(include meetings that focus on improving your teaching)? 1.10 2.97 

7e. Attended workshops or courses sponsored by your school district 

(exclude required in-services)? .85 3.71 

7f. Attended professional development activities sponsored by the teachers’ 

union? .99 6.27 

Experience of Change 

How much do you disagree or agree with each of the following ... 

8a. Most changes introduced at this school involve only a few teachers; rarely 

does the whole faculty become involved (reverse-coded). 1.13 4.56 

8b. We receive adequate professional development support for the changes 

we introduce at our school. 1.16 4.94 

8c. Most changes introduced at this school gain little support among teachers 

(reverse-coded). .68 4.64 

 

 ofte you ha versat ith 

5a. The goals of 

5b. Development um

5c. Managing cl

5d. What helps students st? 93 

Perceptions About Rel on

How much do you di

6a. Teachers in thi

h of

other

win

04 

6b. It’s OK in this grad

with other teachers.

6c. Teache ke th n grad l 

improvement effo

6d. Teachers in this 

08 

colleagues who a rt at 

thei t. .76
Table F.6 (continued) 

F.22 

Subscale/Item 

Infit Mean Item 

Difficultyb Squarea 

Professional Development Opportunities 

Overall, my professi

9a. Have in

onal development experiences over the past school year ... 

cluded opportunities to work productively with teachers from 

other schools. 1. 4 5. 0 

d enough time to think carefully about, to try, and to 

.99 5.64 

 my understanding of subject matter. 7 4. 5 

d my students better. 

 focused, rather than being short term 

ork productively with colleagues in my 

school. 1.16 4.74 

hing. 1 3 

an. 1 3 

ent addresses the needs of 

1.10 4.35 

Lead

How r agree with each of the following ... 

1

1

1 b. The principal at this school works to create a sense of community in the 

vement 

in the school. .94 3.95 

t this school supports and encourages teachers to take 

1 5.12 

1 .91 4.62 

10f. nges introduced at this school receive strong support from the 

1

1

2 2

9b. Have include

evaluate new ideas. 

9c. Have deepened .7 3

9d. Have helped me understan .81 4.63 

9e. Have been sustained and coherently

and unrelated. .85 5.13 

9f. Have included opportunities to w

9g. Have led me to make changes in my teac .7 .99

9h. Have been closely connected to my school’s improvement pl .22 .96

9i. Most of what I learn in professional developm

the students in my classroom. 

ership and Support 

much do you disagree o

0a. The principal at this school is strongly committed to shared decision 

making. .46 5.02 

0

school. .80 4.46 

10c. The principal at this school promotes parent and community invol

10d. The principal a

risks. .9

0e. The principal at this school is willing to make changes. 

Most cha

principal. .80 4.99 

0g. The principal at this school encourages teachers to try new methods of 

instruction. .11 4.48 

SOURC rs in Year 1 of the stud

a

Infit m he standardized residual variance weighting for individual l 

var ater weight. The expected value is 

1.0, wi s less than .5 and greater than 1.7 generally considered poorly fitting ite Wright an cre 

994). 

I rceptions of the prof ssional culture their 

sch lower values, and items that are 

endors on the same so that teac

are eir score, and teachers who are less 

likely t e difficulties above their score. 

E: Teacher Survey administered to fifth-grade teache y. 

ean square is the average of t each residua

iance so that unexpected responses close to the item’s difficulty are given gre

th value ms ( d Lina

1

b tem difficulty is the relative likelihood that different opinions/pe e in

ools will be endorsed by teachers. Items that are endorsed more frequently have

ed less frequently have higher values. Teachers and items are placed scale hers who 

highly likely to endorse the perceptions are below the item difficulty for th

o endorse the perceptions hav
S

APPENDIX G 

ESTIMATING IMPACT
This page is intentionally left blank.
G.3 

his appendix describes our approach to calculating impacts as part of our primary and 

secondary analyses. Our primary analyses focus on the central questions of whether any of the 

supplemental curricula individually, or as a group, improve a second cohort of students’ scores 

on reading comprehension assessments after schools and teachers have a year of experience 

using the supplemental curriculum, and whether the interventions have an impact on the test 

scores of the first cohort of students one year after the end of their experience with the 

supplemental curricula. Our seco ompose overall impacts and 

thus improve our understanding of whether the supplemental curricula are particularly effective 

for certain subgroups, and to explore the pathways through which supplemental curricula affect 

student achievement. 

A. BENCHMARK APPROACH TO CALCULATING PRIMARY IMPACTS 

The benchmark approach to calculating impacts reflects decisions regarding methodological 

approaches determined most appropriate for this study. The approach also reflects input from the 

Department of Education (ED) and the study’s Technical Work Group regarding suitable 

analytic approaches given the study’s design and goals. Five key areas are addressed in our 

benchmark approach to estimating impacts: (1) regression adjustment, (2) clustering of students, 

(3) missing data, (4) multiple comparisons, and (5) weights. 

1. Regression Adjustment 

We calculated impacts using regression adjustment in order to increase the statistical 

precision of our impact estimates, which would enable us to detect smaller treatment effects. We 

also adjusted for any characteristics of schools, teachers, or students that differed significantly 

between treatment and control groups at baseline. Although random assignment ensures no 

systematic differences between the treatment and control groups in the characteristics of 

students, teachers, or schools, it is still possible that random differences will exist between the 

groups. By regression adjusting for these random differences, we can greatly improve the 

precision of our impact estimates. With regression adjustment, the minimum detectable effect 

size (MDES) of this study is 0.14 standard deviations for the impacts on post-test scores of the 

second cohort of students and 0.25 for the impacts on follow-up scores of the first cohort of 

students. Without regression adjustment, the MDES would have been 0.44 standard deviations 

for the impacts on post-test scores of the second cohort of students and 0.50 for the impacts on 

follow-up scores of the first cohort of students. The covariates in our impact models are baseline 

GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language learner 

status, school location, whether students were overage for grade, teacher sex, teacher age, teacher 

race, and district indicators. 

We also included district fixed effects in our regression model (in the form of district 

indicator variables) to further increase statistical precision.88 We treat district effects as fixed 

 

T

ndary analyses were designed to dec

88Alternatively, we could have included block indicator variables, which would have reduced the degrees of 

freedom for the impact regressions from 67 to 63. As a robustness check, we conducted statistical tests using 63 
G.4 

rath

,

er than random because (1) districts were not randomly sampled and (2) districts were not 

randomly assigned. Stated differently, if we were to repeat the study we would have the same 

districts represented in the study and in the treatment and control groups, meaning that districts 

do not vary and do not contribute to variation in impacts. 

In equation form, the regression model we estimated when examining impacts for the first 

cohort of students in the second year is: 

(1) 

10

i j , 1 y CRISS RA R K R R X D u 23 4 ,

1

4 4 j j j j ij k k j ij

k

=+ + + + + + + + α δ δδ δ β γ ε ∑=

where i and j index students and schools, respectively; CRISS, RA, R4K, an

treatment group indicators (for Project CRISS, ReadAbout, Reading for Knowledge

d R4R are 

, and Read 

for R

). To test for differences in 

pacts between post-test and follow-up, we estimated a stacked regression model that allowed 

covariance terms. Below we describe how we account for the 

 schools that is implied by the school-level random intercept. 

eal, respectively); X represents covariates; D1-D10 are district indicators; u is a school-level 

random intercept; and ε is a student-level random intercept. The impact of the interventions 

relative to the control group (the omitted category) is given by the coefficients on the treatment 

group indicators. For example, the impact of Project CRISS is given by δ 1. We estimated two 

versions of this model in the study’s second year—one in which the outcome is the post-test 

(measured at the end of fifth grade for the first cohort) and one in which the outcome is the 

follow-up test (measured at the end of sixth grade for the first cohort

im

us to calculate cross-equation 

correlation between students within

 The regression model we estimated to assess impacts of the interventions after schools have 

had a year of experience using them is: 

(2) 

, 1 2 3 4 1,

10

5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , , ,

1

4 4

4 4

i j j j j j ij

i j j ij j ij j ij j ij k k j ij

k

y CRISS RA R K R R C

C CRISS C RA C R K C R R X D u

α δ δδ δ λ

δ δ δ δ βγ ε =

=+ + + + + +

⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + ⋅ + + ++ ∑

where C is a cohort indicator variable and other variables are defined as above. Note that both 

first and second cohort students are included in this regression and the outcome variable is the 

students’ post-test scores (from spring 2008 for Cohort 2 students and spring 2007 for Cohort 1 

students). The coefficients δ1 through δ4 give the impact of the interventions for the first cohort 

and δ5 through δ8 give the change in impacts for the second cohort. 

 The regression model we estimated to assess impacts of the interventions after teachers have 

had a year of experience using them is: 

 

(continued)

degrees of freedom instead of 67 and found that p-values increased by less than 0.001, which does not change the 

statistical significance of any of our findings. 
(3) 

, 1 2 3 1, 2 ,

4 , 5 , 6 ,

7 , 8, 9,

4

4

4

i j j j j ij i j

i j j ij j ij j

i j j ij j i j

y CRISS RA R R C TCH

C CRISS C RA C R R

TCH CRISS TCH RA TCH R R

G.5 

10 , , 11 , , 12 , ,

,

4 ij ij j ij ij j ij ij j

ij k k j

C TCH CRISS C TCH RA C TCH R R

X Du

j

k

α δ δ δ λλ

δ δδ

δ δδ

=+ + + + + +

⋅ + ⋅+ ⋅ +

⋅ + ⋅+ ⋅

δ δδ

β γ

+

+ +

10

, ∑ + ε

+

⋅ ⋅ + ⋅ ⋅+ ⋅ ⋅

1

i j

=

Whe CH is a variable that indicates whether teachers have been in the study schools for both 

study years and other variables are defined as above. Note that TCH can take on values of either 

0 o

to calculate cross-equation covariance terms which are 

sed when adjusting p-values for multiple comparisons. 

alternative approach to account for clustering would be to estimate a mixed effects 

model using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) or software such as SAS (using the proc mixed

ommand). The difference between estimating our impact model using HLM instead of GEE is 

 population is not consistent 

3. Missing Data 

We encounter missing data in two contexts. First, we encounter missing covariate data in 

re T

r 1 for both Cohorts 1 and 2. The coefficients δ1 through δ3 give the impact of the 

interventions for the first cohort and teachers who are in the study for just one year; δ4 through 

δ6 show how impacts change for the second cohort with teachers in the study for just one year; 

δ7 through δ9 show how impacts change for the first cohort with teachers in the study for two 

years; and δ10 through δ12 show how impacts change for second cohort students taught by 

teachers in the study for two years. For example, the impact for Project CRISS on second cohort 

students taught by teachers in the study for two years is δ1 + δ4 + δ7 + δ10. 

2. Clustering of Students 

To account for correlation in the error term between students within the same schools, we 

estimated standard errors using generalized estimating equations (GEE) in the software package 

R. This approach yields impact estimates that are the same as ordinary least squares (OLS) 

impact estimates, but adjusts the standard errors to account for clustering of students within 

schools. This approach also allows us 

u

An 

c

that HLM gives different weights to different schools in order to minimize the variance of the 

impact, whereas the GEE approach weights schools according to our random assignment 

probability weights. HLM yields impacts that are intended to generalize to a hypothetical superpopulation of schools and students whereas the GEE approach yields impacts that generalize to 

the schools and students selected for this study. We chose GEE instead of HLM for our 

benchmark approach because we believe that generalizing to a larger

with the study design and because GEE allows for easy calculation of cross-equation 

covariances, which help to increase statistical power when adjusting for multiple comparisons. 

our impact regressions. Second, we encounter missing outcome data when estimating impacts on 
G.6 

the GRADE and ETS follow-up tests. We discuss how each of these is addressed in the analysis 

below. 

Missing Covariates89

We implemented an approach to account for missing covariates to maximize the number of 

observations that would contribute to the estimation of impacts of the curricula. We account for 

issing covariates by imputing the missing variable to the mean of the variable and including a 

luding covariates is to increase 

the precision of the impact estimates, this issue has little practical significance in this context. 

Table G.1 shows the proportion of the sample missing each of the covariates included in our 

e biased. Evidence of this kind of bias 

would be either a differential rate of nonresponse between the treatment and control groups or 

diffe

m

missing value indicator in our regression equation. This approach results in unbiased impact 

estimates because treatment status is uncorrelated with the other covariates.90 By using this 

approach, we ensure that the parameter estimate for each covariate is based only on nonmissing 

observations while allowing an observation that is missing data on one covariate to still 

contribute to estimating the effects of covariates for which that observation is not missing data. 

(In the context of this evaluation, the primary concern is ensuring that all observations with 

follow-up data contribute to the estimation of the coefficients on the treatment status indicators.) 

This approach may result in parameter estimates for covariates with missing data that do not 

fully represent the entire study sample. Because the purpose of inc

impact regressions. 

Missing Follow-up Tests 

Missing follow-up test score data have two potential implications. First, if students who 

have follow-up test score data in a treatment group are different from those who have follow-up 

test score data in the control group, then impacts could b

rent characteristics of respondents between treatment and control groups. Second, if students 

who are missing test score data are different from those who are not, then the impacts calculated 

for the analysis sample (that is, students who are not missing the outcome variable) might not be 

completely representative of students in the study sample. 

Our analysis indicates that the impact estimates are unlikely to be biased due to differential 

nonresponse between the treatment and control groups. The proportion of students with a score 

on each test is between 85 and 90 percent for the post-test for Cohort 2, with no statistically 

 

89This discussion applies only to missing covariates, such as baseline test score and race/ethnicity. It does not 

apply o the treatment indicator variables. The treatment indicator variables are never missing because we know the 

rando assignment status of every school in the study. 

es the bias in the regression coefficient on a variable, x1, when missing values of a second 

varia

funct

expectation). 

 t

m

90Jones (1996) deriv

ble, x2, are imputed to a constant value and a dummy variable is included in the regression. The bias is a 

ion of the correlation between x1 and x2, such that if the correlation is zero, the bias is zero. In our study, x1 is 

treatment status, x2 is another covariate, and by random assignment the correlation between the two is zero (in 
G.7 

PORTION OF SAMPLE MISSING EACH COVARIATE, BY OUTCOME, YEAR 2 ANALYSES 

Social Studies 

Reading Science Reading 

TABLE G.1 

PRO

Composite 

Test Score 

GRADE 

Score 

Comprehension 

Score 

Comprehension 

Score 

Cohort 2, Post-Test 

School Locationa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Teacher Raceb

 38.0 38.1 37.7 38.1 

Baseline GRADE 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 

Baseline TOSCRF 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 

Student ELL Status 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 

Student Racec

 30.2 30.2 29.9 30.3 

Student Ethnicityd

 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

School Locationa

 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 

20.1 20.1 20.3 20.0 

Basel e GRADE 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 

Teacher Raceb

in

Baseline TOSCRF 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.0 

Student ELL Status 22.8 22.7 22.2 23.2 

Student Racec

 34.8 34.8 34.6 34.9 

Student Ethnicityd

 54.1 54.1 53.7 54.6 

a

School location includes indicators for “Urban,” “Urban Fringe,” and “Rural” locations. 

b

Tea

d

Student ethnicity includes an indicator for “Hispanic.” 

ELL = Engl

cher race includes indicators for “White,” “Black,” “Asian,” and “Native American/Pacific Islander.” 

c

Student race includes indicators for “White,” “Black,” “Asian,” and “Native American/Pacific Islander.” 

ish language learner; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 
G.8 

significant differences between intervention and control groups (Table G.2). Among first cohort 

students, the proportion with a fo

with trol 

group (on the GRADE and ETS science comprehension assessments). The number of 

statistically significant differences in Table G.2 (two) is less than pe

chance out of the 27 differences presented. In addition, as shown in Tables G.3-G.

characteristics of tudents with follow- ores dif all

treatment and control groups. Of the 405 comparisons made in these three tables, 14 are 

statistically significant (assuming independent tests, we would expect approximately 20 

ificant differences by random nce). We clude from ese compari that 

the internal validity of the study is not threatened by missing follow-up test score data. 

there is evidence that nonre ndents are lower achieving than respondents 

(Tables G.9 and G.10). Specifically, we see evidence that nonrespondents have lower baseline 

ore likely to be overage for grade, and have more absences from school then 

e evidence that nonrespondents differ from respondents in term race 

and gender. 

nresponse weights to account for these differences in baseline characteristics of 

students who do and do not have a follow-up test se weights are described in detail in 

Section 5. 

 Comparisons 

aking clear distinctions between effects that are real and those that are due to 

cated by the issue of multipl mparison y comparing multiple inte tion 

ol group, for multiple out s, the p ility that of those d nces 

tistically significant is g er than th le dif

statistically significant. Intuiti this is ar to the erence bet the 

toss of a coin yielding s and th bability t t least one eral 

oin tosses will yield heads. 

s 

w domain 

domains 

so that w ed in 

ount correlations between tests due to a shared 

control group, drawing critical values based on a multivariate t-distribution. Hothorn, Bretz, and 

Westfall (2008) implement a more generalized procedure that is also based on a multivariate tdistribution but adjusts p-values for multiple tests taking into account correlations that arise for 

any reason (not just a common control group). We use this approach to adjust for both multiple 

treatment groups and multiple outcomes. For the secondary analyses described below, we also 

adjust for multiple subgroups. This procedure requires covariance estimates between all impacts, 

llow-up test score on each test is between 72 and 79 percent, 

 two statistically significant differences between the Project CRISS group and the con

we would ex

fer systematic

ct by random 

8, the average 

s up test sc do not y among the

statistically sign cha con th sons

However, spo

test scores, are m

respondents. We also se s of 

We used no

. The

4. Multiple

In this study, m

chance is compli e co s. B rven

groups to a contr come robab one iffere

will appear to be sta

will appear 

reat

vely,

e probability that a sing

simil

ference 

 diff ween

probability of a single head e pro hat a of sev

c

Our benchmark approach to adjusting p-values to account for multiple comparisons begin

ith the establishment of several different sets, or domains, of multiple tests. Each 

pertains to a separate research question. We then adjust p-values for tests within these 

e control the probability of drawing a false conclusion. The domains are describ

Chapters III and IV. 

Within domains we calculate p-values using a generalized version of the Dunnett (1955) 

adjustment. Dunnett’s approach takes into acc
G.9 

TABLE G.2 

PROPORTION OF STUDENTS WITH TEST SCORES IN YEAR 2, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 

Follow-Up Tests 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Cohort 2, Post-Test 

GRADE 89.0 88.0 90.0 87.0 n.a. 88.0 

 (0.69) (0.75) (0.59) (0.86) 

ETS Social Studies Comprehension 89.9 88.0 87.0 85.0 n.a. 87.0 

 (0.62) (0.51) (0.22) (0.45) 

ETS Science Comprehension 88.0 85.0 90.0 87.0 n.a. 88.0 

 (0.40) (0.48) (0.70) (0.84) 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

GRADE 73.0 79.0* 77.0 73.0 75.0 76.0 

 (0.03) (0.23) (0.85) (0.57) (0.25) 

ETS

Comprehension 72.0 78.0* 76.0 72.0 76.0 76.1 

 (0.04) (0.21) (0.84) (0.28) (0.16) 

 Social Studies Comprehension 72.0 78.0 75.0 74.0 74.0 75.0 

 (0.09) (0.41) (0.71) (0.73) (0.33) 

ETS Science 

sts administered by study team. 

NOT : The p-values from t-tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented in 

el. 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension te

E

parentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. Students in the study were 

randomly assigned to take either the ETS social studies reading comprehension assessment or the ETS 

science reading comprehension assessment. The GRADE was administered to all students in the study. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; n.a. = not 

applicable. 

*Statistically different at the .05 lev
G.10 

SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 

Grou

j

ReadAbout 

R

Real 

C

Tre

Group 

TABLE G.3 

AVERAGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS WITH GRADE POST-TEST 

Control 

p CRISS 

Pro ect ead for 

ombined 

atment 

Percentage in Study Schools at 98.0 96.0 98.0 98.0 97.0 

Baseline .10 (0 (0.6 

4 2.0 10 100.

 0.37 (0 (0.85) 

RF Score (Average) 8.9 90.0 8 89.

 (1.00) (0.59) (0.67) 

ercentage) 50.0 52 4

(0.90) (0.36)

 10.7 10 1

(0.31) (0.85)

 22.0 17 2

(0.21) (0.84)

H spanic (Percentage) 26.0 25.0 32.0 15.0 30.0 

(0.65) (0.42) (0.72) 

(Percentage) 

Black 

(0.47) (0.62) (0.70) (0.72) 

22.0 18.0 17.0 14.0 17.0 

(0.47) (0.62) (0.70) (0.72) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.0 7.7 

School Year (Average) (0.57) (0.73) (0.22) (0.56) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 76.0 69.0 72.0 75.0 72.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.33) (0.60) (0.94) (0.57) 

Classified as English Language 17.0 17.0 16.0 4.0* 16.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.94) (0.97) (0.00) (0.84) 

Identified as Having a Disability 11.0 11.0 10.0 16.0 12.0 

(Percentage)

(0 ) .97) 2) (0.34) 

GRADE Score (Average) 100. 10

( ) 

0.7 

.86)

7 101.1 

(0.62) 

TOSC 8 8.9 9 89.5 

(0.47) 

Female (P 50.0 .0 9.0 51.0 

 (0.73) (0.68)

Age (Average) 10.7 .6 0.7 10.7 

 (0.11) (0.73)

Overage (Percentage)a 18.0 .0 4.0 19.0 

 (0.06) (0.60)

i

 (0.93) 

Race 

White 31.0 41.0 32.0 33.0 37.0 

(0.47) (0.62) (0.70) (0.72) 

45.0 37.0 45.0 51.0 42.0 

(0.47) (0.62) (0.70) (0.72) 

Asian 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 

Native American 

b

 (0.93) (0.77) (0.31) (0.79) 

Number of Studentsc 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 2,948 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.3 (continued) 

 

G.11 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 2 was fa test data for Cohort 2 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

in parentheses. These ools. 

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 20

b student was identified as having a d f any llow s we d on t 

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness, d ental d otion e, hea pairme ing 

isability, mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

airment, a er disabil included list. 

he number of students presented in this row is the number with GRADE post-test scores. Response rates vary 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

F

* e .05 level. 

ll 2007. Postrte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented 

 tests account for clustering of students within sch

07. 

 the Studen

nt, learn

A

R

isability i

evelopm

of the fo

elay, em

ing categorie

al disturbanc

re indicate

ring im

d

traumatic brain injury, visual imp nd oth ity not in this

c

T

across items.

luency. 

Statistically different at th
G.12 

AVERA

ombined 

TABLE G.4 

GE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITH FOLLOW-UP GRADE 

SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

C

Treatment 

Group 

Percentage in Study Schools at 98.0 95.0* 98.0 96.0 98.0 97.0 

Baseline (0.01) (0.60) (0.05) (0.83) (0.06) 

(0.42) (0.71) (0.40) (0.70) (0.92) 

re (Average) 88.7 89.5 88.4 88.0 89.9 89.0 

(0.50) (0.66) (0.41) (0.34) (0.79) 

49.0 52.0 53.0* 52.0 49.0 52.0 

(0.10) (0.05) (0.17) (0.93) (0.09) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 

 (0.39) (0.72) (0.19) (0.77) (0.39) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 20.0 22.0 21.0 24.0 21.0 22.0 

 (0.54) (0.77) (0.33) (0.73) (0.48) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 74.0 73.0 77.0 76.0 72.0 75.0 

 (0.89) (0.68) (0.87) (0.82) (0.93) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 37.0 43.0 38.0 42.0 44.0 42.0 

 (0.92) (1.00) (0.58) (0.70) (0.85) 

Black 42.0 39.0 44.0 43.0 41.0 42.0 

 (0.92) (1.00) (0.58) (0.70) (0.85) 

Asian 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 

 (0.92) (1.00) (0.58) (0.70) (0.85) 

Native American 17.0 14.0 14.0 11.0 10.0 13.0 

 (0.92) (1.00) (0.58) (0.70) (0.85) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 10.7 10.1 10.8 14.4 10.7 11.4 

School Year (Average) (0.83) (1.00) (0.48) (0.99) (0.82) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 60.0 59.0 61.0 58.0 59.0 59.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.92) (0.84) (0.82) (0.91) (0.96) 

Classified as English Language 26.0 26.0 31.0 34.0 25.0 29.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.99) (0.71) (0.63) (0.91) (0.74) 

Identified as Having a Disability 10.0 9.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE Score (Average) 100.5 101.9 100.0 99.5 101.2 100.6 

TOSCRF Sco

Female (Percentage) 

b

 (0.68) (0.81) (0.87) (0.82) (0.99) 

Number of Studentsc 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.4 (continued) 

 

G.13 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 1 was fa w-up data for Cohort 1 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

in parentheses. These ools. 

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 2006

b ent was identified as having ty i e ate re

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness ay, stur hea ent g 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

pairme othe ot ed in th 

e number of students presented in this row is the number with follow-up GRADE scores. Response rates vary 

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

t at the .05 level. 

ll 2006. Follo

rte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented

 tests account for clustering of students within sch

. 

the Student 

, learnin

A stud

R

a disabili

, developm

f any of th

ental del

 following c

 emotional di

gories we

bance,

 indicated on

ring impairm

disability, 

traumatic brain injury, visual im nt, and r disability n includ is list.

c

Th

across items. 

G

Fluency. 

*Statistically differen
G.14 

AVER

R L CONDITION 

bined 

TABLE G.5 

AGE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS WITH SOCIAL STUDIES 

EADING COMPREHENSION POST-TEST SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTA

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Treatment 

Group 

Com

Percentage in Study Schools at 97.0 96.0 98.0 98.0 97.0 

Baseline (0.50) (0.20) (0.27) (0.81) 

(0.32) (0.95) (0.96) (0.63) 

 Score (Average) 88.6 90.1 89.1 90.0 89.6 

(0.33) (0.67) (0.45) (0.44) 

49.0 52.0 50.0 51.0 51.0 

(0.36) (0.80) (0.68) (0.37) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.7 10.7 

 (0.61) (0.46) (0.41) (0.79) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 19.0 22.0 18.0 24.0 20.0 

 (0.43) (0.63) (0.16) (0.93) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 26.0 25.0 33.0 16.0 30.0 

 (0.98) (0.61) (0.49) (0.68) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 29.0 39.0 31.0 31.0 36.0 

 (0.60) (0.91) (0.61) (0.86) 

Black 45.0 37.0 47.0 54.0 43.0 

 (0.60) (0.91) (0.61) (0.86) 

Asian 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 

 (0.60) (0.91) (0.61) (0.86) 

Native American 23.0 19.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 

 (0.60) (0.91) (0.61) (0.86) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 8.5 8.1 7.8 6.8 7.8 

School Year (Average) (0.68) (0.61) (0.15) (0.51) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 76.0 68.0 74.0 77.0 73.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.26) (0.79) (0.88) (0.63) 

Classified as English Language 18.0 17.0 18.0 4.0* 16.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.86) (0.96) (0.00) (0.79) 

Identified as Having a Disability 10.0 11.0 11.0 17.0 12.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE Score (Average) 100.4 102.2 100.5 100.5 101.0 

 

TOSCRF

 

Female (Percentage) 

 

b

 (0.81) (0.92) (0.23) (0.56) 

Number of Studentsc 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 2,948 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.5 (continued) 

 

G.15 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 2 was fa ta for Cohort 2 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

d 

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 20

b student was identified as having a d f any llow s we d on t 

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness, d ental d otion e, hea pairme ing 

isability, mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

airment, a er disabil t included list. 

he number of students presented in this row is the number with social studies reading comprehension post-test 

 across items. 

ADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

e .05 level. 

ll 2007. Post-test da

rte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presente

in parentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. 

07. 

 the Studen

nt, learn

A

R

isability i

evelopm

of the fo

elay, em

ing categorie

al disturbanc

re indicate

ring im

d

traumatic brain injury, visual imp nd oth ity no in this

c

T

scores. Response rates vary

GR

Fluency. 

*Statistically different at th
G.16 

AVERA

 CONDITION 

ombined 

TABLE G.6 

GE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITH FOLLOW-UP SOCIAL 

STUDIES READING COMPREHENSION SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Treatment 

Group 

C

Percentage in Study Schools at 98.0 96.0* 98.0 96.0* 98.0 97.0* 

Baseline (0.02) (0.59) (0.01) (0.61) (0.05) 

(0.50) (0.61) (0.33) (0.87) (0.89) 

re (Average) 88.7 89.5 88.9 88.4 89.9 89.2 

(0.54) (0.79) (0.80) (0.23) (0.55) 

47.0 54.0* 55.0* 52.0 48.0 52.0 

 (0.05) (0.01) (0.17) (0.83) (0.06) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 

 (0.52) (0.75) (0.12) (0.93) (0.46) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 21.0 22.0 21.0 25.0 21.0 22.0 

 (0.71) (0.85) (0.34) (0.87) (0.59) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 74.0 74.0 78.0 75.0 72.0 75.0 

 (0.94) (0.65) (0.94) (0.79) (0.93) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 37.0 42.0 36.0 42.0 45.0 41.0 

 (0.68) (0.98) (0.21) (0.38) (0.52) 

Black 41.0 39.0 45.0 44.0 43.0 42.0 

 (0.68) (0.98) (0.21) (0.38) (0.52) 

Asian 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 

 (0.68) (0.98) (0.21) (0.38) (0.52) 

Native American 17.0 15.0 15.0 11.0 10.0 13.0 

 (0.68) (0.98) (0.21) (0.38) (0.52) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 10.4 10.0 9.8 13.9 10.7 11.0 

School Year (Average) (0.91) (0.87) (0.51) (0.92) (0.82) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 60.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 58.0 59.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.82) (0.87) (0.92) (0.71) (0.81) 

Classified as English Language 25.0 27.0 30.0 33.0 25.0 29.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.86) (0.63) (0.63) (0.99) (0.66) 

Identified as Having a Disability 10.0 9.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE Score (Average) 100.8 101.9 100.0 99.6 101.0 100.6 

TOSCRF Sco

Female (Percentage) 

b

 (0.66) (0.71) (0.68) (0.97) (0.92) 

Number of Studentsc 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.6 (continued) 

 

G.17 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 1 was fa w-up data for Cohort 1 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 2006

b ent was identified as having ty i e ate re

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness ay, stur hea ent g 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

pairme other ot ed in th

umber of students presented in this row is the number with follow-up social studies reading comprehension 

y across ite

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

t at the .05 level. 

ll 2006. Follo

rte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented 

in parentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. 

. 

the Student 

, learnin

A stud

R

a disabili

, developm

f any of th

ental del

 following c

 emotional di

gories we

bance,

 indicated on

ring impairm

disability, 

traumatic brain injury, visual im nt, and disability n includ is list. 

c

The n

scores. Response rates var ms. 

G

Fluency. 

*Statistically differen
G.18 

AVERA

ITION 

mbined 

TABLE G.7 

GE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS WITH SCIENCE READING 

COMPREHENSION POST-TEST SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL COND

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Treatment 

Group 

Co

Percentage in Study Schools at 99.0 96.0* 97.0 99.0 0.97* 

Baseline (0.02) (0.16) (0.97) (0.04) 

0.5 101.7 100.9 101.0 101.1 

(0.52) (0.79) (0.77) (0.66) 

 Score (Average) 89.3 89.8 88.8 89.9 89.4 

(0.75) (0.70) (0.77) (0.97) 

51.0 50.0 54.0 47.0 50.0 

 (0.71) (0.38) (0.36) (0.84) 

Age (Average) 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.8* 10.7 

 (0.16) (0.79) (0.02) (0.38) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 16.0 23.0 16.0 24.0* 19.0 

 (0.12) (0.97) (0.04) (0.39) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 27.0 25.0 32.0 14.0 30.0 

 (0.84) (0.71) (0.36) (0.79) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 33.0 42.0 33.0 36.0 38.0 

 (0.58) (0.93) (.) (0.91) 

Black 44.0 37.0 44.0 48.0 41.0 

 (0.58) (0.93) (.) (0.91) 

Asian 2.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 

 (0.58) (0.93) (.) (0.91) 

Native American 21.0 17.0 18.0 15.0 17.0 

 (0.58) (0.93) (.) (0.91) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 8.2 7.1 7.8 7.2 7.5 

School Year (Average) (0.33) (0.81) (0.39) (0.56) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 75.0 70.0 70.0 74.0 72.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.52) (0.47) (0.83) (0.59) 

Classified as English Language 16.0 18.0 15.0 4.0* 15.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.74) (0.85) 0.00 (0.87) 

Identified as Having a Disability 11.0 10.0 10.0 16.0 11.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE Score (Average) 10

 

TOSCRF

Female (Percentage) 

b

 (0.75) (0.60) (0.46) (1.00) 

Number of Studentsc 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 2,948 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.7 (continued) 

 

G.19 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 2 was fa test data for Cohort 2 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

in p

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 200

b ent was identified as having a d if any llow s we d on t 

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness, mental d otion e, hea pairmen ng 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

pairment ther disab t include is list. 

he number of students presented in this row is the number with science reading comprehension post-test scores. 

 items. 

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

 at the .05 level. 

ll 2007. Postrte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented 

arentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. 

7. 

 the Studen

t, learni

A stud

R

isability 

develop

of the fo

elay, em

ing categorie

al disturbanc

re indicate

ring im

disability, 

traumatic brain injury, visual im , and o ility no d in th

c

T

Response rates vary across

G

Fluency. 

*Statistically different
G.20 

AVERA

DITION 

ombined 

TABLE G.8 

GE BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITH FOLLOW-UP SCIENCE 

READING COMPREHENSION SCORES, BY EXPERIMENTAL CON

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Treatment 

Group 

C

Percentage in Study Schools at 98.0 95.0 98.0 96.0 98.0 97.0 

Baseline (0.05) (0.87) (0.29) (0.93) (0.28) 

(0.43) (0.78) (0.39) (0.55) (0.83) 

re (Average) 88.7 89.5 87.8 87.6 89.9 88.7 

(0.44) (0.34) (0.20) (0.39) (0.94) 

50.0 51.0 49.0 53.0 50.0 51.0 

 (0.72) (0.99) (0.38) (0.93) (0.61) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 

 (0.45) (0.90) (0.37) (0.57) (0.48) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 20.0 21.0 20.0 24.0 21.0 21.0 

 (0.65) (0.87) (0.40) (0.76) (0.60) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 74.0 72.0 77.0 77.0 72.0 75.0 

 (0.81) (0.71) (0.78) (0.79) (0.95) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 37.0 43.0 38.0 42.0 43.0 42.0 

 (0.97) (0.89) (0.90) (0.84) (0.89) 

Black 42.0 38.0 43.0 42.0 41.0 41.0 

 (0.97) (0.89) (0.90) (0.84) (0.89) 

Asian 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 

 (0.97) (0.89) (0.90) (0.84) (0.89) 

Native American 17.0 14.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 13.0 

 (0.97) (0.89) (0.90) (0.84) (0.89) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior 10.9 9.9 11.5 14.8 10.6 11.5 

School Year (Average) (0.75) (0.85) (0.44) (0.90) (0.79) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 58.0 59.0 63.0 57.0 59.0 60.0 

Lunch (Percentage) (0.88) (0.46) (0.83) (0.89) (0.77) 

Classified as English Language 27.0 26.0 31.0 35.0 25.0 29.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.89) (0.75) (0.59) (0.84) (0.78) 

Identified as Having a Disability 11.0 9.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 10.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE Score (Average) 100.5 101.9 100.1 99.4 101.6 100.7 

TOSCRF Sco

Female (Percentage) 

b

 (0.48) (0.91) (0.76) (0.79) (0.70) 

Number of Studentsc 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

SOURCE: Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 
Table G.8 (continued) 

 

G.21 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 1 was fa w-up data for Cohort 1 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are repo d only for students who were present in study schools 

in pa

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage for grade if he or she was 11 or older as of September 1, 2006

b ent was identified as having ty i e ate re

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness ay, stur hea ent g 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

pairme othe ility not ed in th 

e number of students presented in this row is the number with follow-up science reading comprehension scores. 

s items. 

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

ll 2006. Follo

rte

at baseline. The p-values from tests of treatment and control group differences in means are presented 

rentheses. These tests account for clustering of students within schools. 

. 

the Student 

, learnin

A stud

R

a disabili

, developm

f any of th

ental del

 following c

 emotional di

gories we

bance,

 indicated on

ring impairm

disability, 

traumatic brain injury, visual im nt, and r disab includ is list.

c

Th

Response rates vary acros

G

Fluency. 
G.22 

TABLE G.9 

eading 

hension 

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 2 STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT 

POST-TEST SCORES 

 Social Studies 

 GRADE 

Reading 

Comprehension 

Science R

Compre

Students 

with a 

Score 

Students 

Without 

a Score 

 Students 

with a 

Score 

Students 

Without 

a Score 

 Students 

with a 

Score 

Students 

Without 

a Score 

Percentage in Study Schools at Baseline 97.0 99.0* 97.0 98.0 97.0 97.0 

 (0.02) (0.39) (1.00) 

GRADE Score (Average) 101.0 98.7* 101.0 100.5 101.1 100.5* 

 (0.00) (0.11) (0.02) 

TOSCRF Score (Average) 89.4 87.3* 89.4 89.0 89.4 89.0 

 (0.00) (0.11) (0.09) 

Female (Percentage) 50.0 46.0* 50.0 49.0 51.0 49.0 

 (0.03) (0.43) (0.38) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.9* 10.7 10.7* 10.7 10.7* 

 (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) 

Overage (Percentage)a 20.0 34.0* 20.0 22.0* 19.0 23.0* 

 (0.00) (0.04) (0.00) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 26.0 28.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 

 (0.75) (0.68) (0.92) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 35.0 39.0* 33.0 37.0* 36.0 34.0* 

 (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) 

Black 44.0 50.0* 44.0 44.0* 43.0 46.0* 

 (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) 

Asian 2.0 2.0* 3.0 2.0* 2.0 2.0* 

 (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) 

Native American 18.0 8.0* 18.0 16.0* 18.0 16.0* 

 (0.00) (0.01) (0.01) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior School 7.8 9.7* 7.9 8.1 7.6 8.3* 

Year (Average) (0.01) (0.39) (0.01) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 72.0 75.0 73.0 73.0 72.0 73.0 

(Percentage) (0.31) (0.63) (0.32) 

Classified as English Language Learner 15.0 17.0 15.0 15.0 14.0 15.0 

 (Percentage) (0.47) (0.64) (0.25) 

Identified as Having a Disability 12.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 

(Percentage)b (0.48) (0.54) (0.62) 

Number of Studentsc 3,664 478 1,825 2,317 1,816 2,326 
Table G.9 (continued) 

 

G.23 

SOURCE: 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Cohort 2 for Cohort 2 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are reported only for students who were present in study schools 

at baseline. The p-values from tests of differences in ean ents with

scores are presented in parentheses. These tests account for clus nts wi

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage fo he 11

b

A student was identified as having a disability if any lowin or dica he

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness, develo l d otiona ban ng im nt, 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, speech or language impairment, 

t, and isabi includ his li

e number of students presented in this row is the number participating in the study. Response rates vary across 

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

t at the .05 level. 

Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 

was fall 2007. Post-test data 

 m s between stud

tering of stude

 and without test 

thin schools. 

r grade if

pmenta

 or she was

of the fol

elay, em

 or older a

g categ

l distur

s of Septem

ies were in

ce, heari

ber 1, 2007.

ted on t

pairme

 Student 

R learning 

disability, 

traumatic brain injury, visual impairmen other d lity not ed in t st. 

c

Th

items. 

G

Fluency. 

*Statistically differen
G.24 

TABLE G.10 

GRADE Comprehension 

g 

Comprehension 

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS OF COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT 

FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES 

 Social Studies 

Reading Science Readin

with a 

Score 

Without 

a Score 

with a 

Score 

Without 

a Score 

with a 

Score 

Without 

a Score 

Students Students Students Students Students Students 

Percentage in Study Schools at Baseline 97.0 92.0* 97.0 95.0* 97.0 95.0* 

 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

 Score (Average) 100.6 98.4* 100.7 99.8* 100.7 99.7* 

 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

re (Average) 88.9 87.2* 89.1 88.1* 88.7 88.4 

 (0.00) (0.00) (0.21) 

51.0 45.0* 51.0 49.0* 50.0 49.0 

 (0.00) (0.02) (0.31) 

Age (Average) 10.7 10.8* 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7* 

 (0.00) (0.07) (0.02) 

Overage (Percentage)a

 22.0 26.0* 22.0 24.0 21.0 24.0* 

 (0.00) (0.16) (0.00) 

Hispanic (Percentage) 74.0 71.0 75.0 73.0 75.0 73.0 

 (0.08) (0.08) (0.14) 

Race (Percentage) 

White 41.0 42.0 40.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 

 (0.62) (0.28) (0.23) 

Black 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 41.0 42.0 

 (0.62) (0.28) (0.23) 

Asian 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 

 (0.62) (0.28) (0.23) 

Native American 13.0 12.0 14.0 13.0 14.0 13.0 

 (0.62) (0.28) (0.23) 

Number of Days Absent in Prior School 11.3 13.6* 11.0* 12.4* 11.5 12.1 

Year (Average) (0.03) (0.03) (0.21) 

Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 60.0 59.0 

(Percentage) (0.90) (0.77) (0.67) 

Classified as English Language 29.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 29.0 27.0 

Learner (Percentage) (0.27) (0.84) (0.20) 

Identified as Having a Disability 11.0 12.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 

(Percentage)

GRADE

TOSCRF Sco

Female (Percentage) 

b (0.17) (0.76) (0.25) 

Number of Studentsc 5,572 777 2,759 3,590 2,746 3,603 
Table G.10 (continued) 

 

G.25 

SOURCE: 

NOTE: Baseline for students in Coho a for Cohort 1 students were collected in 

spring 2008. Baseline characteristics are reported only for students who were present in study schools 

at baseline. The p-values from tests of differences in ean ents with

scores are presented in parentheses. These tests account for clus nts wi

a

We considered a fifth grader to be overage fo he 11

b

A student was identified as having a disability if any lowin or dica he

ecords Form: autism, deaf-blindness, develo l d otiona ban ng im nt, 

mental retardation, orthopedic impairment, other healt mpairment, speech or language impairment, 

t, and isab includ is li

e number of students presented in this row is the number participating in the study. Resp se rates vary across 

RADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; OSCRF = Test of Sile t Contextual Reading 

t at the .05 level. 

Student Records Form; baseline GRADE and TOSCRF tests administered by study team. 

rt 1 was fall 2006. Follow-up dat

 m s between stud

tering of stude

 and without test 

thin schools. 

r grade if

pmenta

 or she was

of the fol

elay, em

 or older a

g categ

l distur

s of Septem

ies were in

ce, heari

ber 1, 2006.

ted on t

pairme

 Student 

R learning 

disability, h i

traumatic brain injury, visual impairmen other d ility not ed in th st. 

c

Th on

items. 

G T n

Fluency. 

*Statistically differen
G.26 

 instead of 

5. Weigh

models 

signment probabilities. 

chance of being assigned to one of the five e

ne control group). However, in districts where the number of schools is not evenly divisible by 

 higher than the probability of being assigned to any given treatment group.92 We take 

 account in our analysis so that all five experimental groups 

resentation of school districts. For the fifth-grade component of 

the second year of the study, we calculate the weights as if there were three intervention groups 

(since the Reading for Knowledge intervention was not included in that component).93

 

The second component of the weight involves accounting for nonresponse to adjust for 

differences in baseline characteristics of students who do and do not have a post-test (or followup) test (as described above in Section 3). For each post-test (or follow-up) test score, we 

estimated a propensity regression model where the outcome is a binary variable that equals one if 

a student has a post-test (or follow-up) test score and zero otherwise. We calculated the expected 

probability of having a post-test (or follow-up) test score for every student using baseline 

 

which is why cross-equation covariances are needed (and is one reason we chose GEE

HLM for our benchmark model). 

ts 

Accounting for nonresponse and random assignment probabilities in our benchmark 

required the use of weights with two components. The overall weight used in the analysis is the 

product of these two components.91 

The first component involves weighting by the inverse of random as

In districts where the number of schools is evenly divisible by five, every school has an equal 

xperimental conditions (four treatment groups and 

o

five, we conducted random assignment such that the probability of being assigned to the control 

group is

these assignment probabilities into

are balanced in terms of their rep

91In all, eight weights were created for each of the study’s second year components. Weights were created for 

each of the study’s four test scores (ETS science comprehension, ETS social studies comprehension, GRADE, and 

the composite). Weights for each of the four test scores were created in two ways, corresponding to the two types of 

comparisons being made: (1) the pooled treatment group versus the control group and (2) all pairwise comparisons 

(both between treatment groups and between each treatment group and the control group). 

92If all schools in the control group within a district left the study, we would lose the ability to calculate any 

impacts in that district. To reduce the chance of this happening, we chose to assign “extra” schools in a district to the 

control group. 

93For convenience, we use the same final weight in all analyses. However in some analyses, for example 

impact regressions that include school district dummy variables, the component of the final weight that reflects 

variation in random assignment probabilities is not needed and has no effect. 
G.27 

, meaning that students with a lower probability of having a 

post-test (or follow-up) test score are weighted more heavily in our analysis. 

B. BENCHMARK APPROACH TO CALCULATING SECONDARY IMPACTS 

ces. Each of these analyses is implemented by interacting 

the treatment dummy variables in equations 1, 2, and 3 with subgroup dummy variables. 

How

e benchmark approach for the secondary analysis is the same as for the primary analysis 

in a

 

data.94,95 We then created a weight that is inversely proportional to the probability of having a 

post-test (or follow-up) test score

The secondary analyses examine how impacts vary by student and teacher characteristics, 

school conditions, and teacher practi

ever, the interpretation of these impacts differs depending on whether the subgroup is 

defined at baseline or could itself be affected by the interventions. Subgroups defined by student 

characteristics (such as baseline test scores), teacher characteristics (such as years of experience), 

and school conditions (such as concentration of ELL students in the school) cannot be affected 

by the intervention. Impacts for these subgroups can be interpreted as causal. Subgroups defined 

by teacher practices, self-reported past professional development, teaching efficacy, and school 

professional culture, however, could be affected by the interventions, which complicates 

interpretation because the treatment and control groups are no longer equivalent within those 

subgroups. Impacts for these subgroups cannot be interpreted as causal. 

Th

ll ways but one. The secondary analysis uses the same approach for regression adjustment, 

clustering, missing data, and weights. The only difference in the benchmark approach between 

the secondary analysis and the primary analysis is how we deal with multiple comparisons. For 

the secondary analysis, we do not adjust for multiple comparisons across all subgroups. We 

adjust only for multiple comparisons within each subgroup analysis. This is described in 

Chapters III and IV. 

racteristics that were 

statistically significant were kept in the final model for each of the eight weights. 

nresponse models were estimated for students without baseline test score data. Because of the 

small number of students that fell into this category, a weighting class approach was used to develop nonresponse 

weig

 in this approach. 

94The baseline data used in the propensity score models included students' demographic characteristics (age, 

gender, race, ethnicity, whether the student is disabled, and whether the student received any reading services), 

students' baseline scores on the GRADE and TOSCRF assessments, characteristics of each student’s teacher (degree 

and experience), and characteristics of each student’s school (percentage of students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch and percentage of students classified as English language learners). Only those cha

95Because of the extent to which baseline test scores are associated with nonresponse (see Tables G.9 and 

G.10), separate no

hts for these students. In this method, students are assigned to cells based on their characteristics and then the 

respondents in each cell are essentially weighted up to represent the nonrespondents in that cell. The same set of 

characteristics listed above (with the exception of baseline test scores) was used
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX H 

ASSESSING ROBUSTNESS OF THE IMPACTS 
This page is intentionally left blank.
H.3 

his appendix describes the robustness of our impact estimates to variations in the 

benchmark model described in Appendix G and to additional issues that might influence our 

findings. 

A. ROBUSTNESS OF THE BENCHMARK APPROACH 

The benchmark approach reflects the m ade to calculate impacts. 

While we think these are the best methodological choices for this study, there are valid 

alternatives to many of these choices that could potentially alter our findings. In this section we 

assess the sensitivity of our findings to variations in our benchmark model. Specifically, we 

assess sensitivity to: 

1. Inclusion of Covariates. The statistical significance of the findings shown in 

Chapters III and IV are not sensitive to the inclusion of covariates (Table H.1). 

2. Use of Nonresponse Weights. The statistical significance of the findings shown in 

Chapters III and IV are not sensitive to the use of nonresponse weights (Table H.1). 

3. Approach to Adjusting for Clustering. Our findings are not sensitive to the method 

used to account for clustering. A comparison of the estimates generated by 

generalized estimating equations (GEE, our benchmark approach) and hierarchical 

linear modeling (HLM) shows that our findings would not have been different if we 

had used HLM instead of GEE (Table H.2). In particular, using HLM does not affect 

the statistical significance of the findings reported in Chapters III and IV. When 

examining the statistical significance of the findings in Table H.2, we used the 

Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiple comparisons, because it was not 

possible to obtain the cross-equation variances from HLM that were needed for the 

multiple comparison procedures used in the benchmark models presented in Chapters 

III and IV. 

B. SENSITIVITY TO ADDITIONAL ISSUES 

After completing our descriptive and impact analyses, we identified several additional issues 

to investigate through sensitivity analysis. Below we list these issues and the results of our 

sensitivity analyses. 

Students with Only Baseline and Follow-up Tests 

Restricting the analysis sample to only students with both baseline and follow-up tests does 

not change the statistical significance of the study’s findings. The positive effect of ReadAbout 

on the social studies post-test for Cohort 2 students whose teachers had one year of experience 

with the study curricula remains statistically significant (Table H.3). All of the other findings 

remain statistically insignificant. 

T

ethodological choices we m
H.4 

Difference in Spring Test Scores Between Each of the Following 

he Control Group: 

TABLE H.1 

SENSITIVITY OF IMPACT ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS 

and t

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Reading 

for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Composite Test Scorea

Benchmark modelb 

Coho 2, Post-Test, School Experience rt 0.00 0.05 -0.02 n.a. 0.02 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 0.02 0.09 0.03 n.a. 0.05 

Cohort 1, Follow Up -0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.02 

Model with no covariates 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.06 0.10 -0.06 n.a. 0.01

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience -0.01 0.11 0.00 n.a. 0.04 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 0.04 -0.00 0.05 0.09 0.04 

Model with weights that adjust for random assignment probability but not nonresponse 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 0.01 0.05 0.00 n.a. 0.02 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 0.05 0.08 0.04 n.a. 0.06

Cohort 1, Follow Up 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.03

GRADE Score 

Benchmark modelb 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.28 -0.08 -0.56 n.a. -0.26 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 0.16 0.24 -0.21 n.a. 0.08

Cohort 1, Follow Up -0.75 -0.14 0.52 0.31 -0.04

Model with no covariates 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.95 0.78 -1.07 n.a. -0.32 

Cohort 2, ost-Test, Teacher Experience -0.47 0.90 -0.58 n.a. 0.11 

o -0.13 0.44 0.86 0.36 

ignment probability but not nonresponse 

 P

Coh rt 1, Follow Up 0.25 

Model with weights that adjust for random ass

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.52 -0.13 -0.50 n.a. -0.32 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience -0.10 0.12 -0.12 n.a. 0.01 

Cohort 1, Follow Up -0.79 -0.17 0.19 0.22 -0.14 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Benchmark modelb 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 0.09 4.63 0.47 n.a. 2.21 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 0.27 6.43* 3.03 n.a. 3.25 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 1.42 -0.65 1.70 3.22 1.08 

 

Model with no covariates 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -1.37 5.85 -1.02 n.a. 1.72 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

-0.35 8.01* 1.71 n.a. 3.46 

0.22 -0.96 0.71 3.43 0.87 

 
Table H.1 (continued) 

H.5 

Difference in Spring Test Scores Between Each of the Following 

and the Control Group: 

Project 

bout 

Read for 

Real 

for 

Know

Treatment 

CRISS ReadA

Reading 

ledge 

Combined 

Group 

Model with weights that adjust for random assignment probability but not n se onrespon

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 0.57 4.80 0.78 n.a. 2.43 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 1.78 -0.67 1.17 2.97 0.95 

1.01 6.48* 3.18 n.a. 3.49 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Benchmark modelb 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 0.58 1.66 -0.31 n.a. 0.83 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, T

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

eacher Experience 0.08 

1.37 

0.10 

1.92 

0.07 

3.18 

n.a. 

1.35 

0.08 

2.23 

Model with no covariates 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -2.11 3.03 -1.94 n.a. 0.01 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, T

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

eacher Experience 0.39 

1.96 

3.55 

1.32 

0.38 

2.50 

n.a. 

2.84 

1.75 

2.14 

Model with weights that adjust for random assignment probability but not nonresponse 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 0.83 1.46 -0.35 n.a. 0.71 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, T

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

eacher Experience 2.14 

3.10 

2.38 

2.95 

1.68 

4.62 

n.a. 

1.90 

1.99 

3.33 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests a team. 

sts presented table. est sc converte a z-s y 

the standard ion of riable udents i samp e 

le average of the three z-scores. 

hts that adjust rand ignment ability e 

TOSCRF , student ethnicity and race, studen lish language 

e for g eacher r, teach , teacher race, 

nd Diagnostic ion; ot app ; TOSC Test o 

*Statistically different at th p-values that are adjusted 

for multiple-hypotheses te

dministered by study 

a

The composite is based on the three te in this Each t ore is d into core b

subtracting the mean and dividing by deviat the va for st n the le. Th

composite is the simp

b

The “benchmark” model includes weig for nonresponse and om ass prob and th

following covariates: pretest GRADE and 

 location, whether students were 

scores t Eng

learner status, school

and district indicators

overag rade, t gende er age

. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment a Evaluat n.a. = n licable RF = f Silent

Contextual Reading Fluency. 

e .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on

sting. 
H.6 

COMPARISON OF BENCHMARK AND HL

Impact and Standard Error for Each of the F

TABLE H.2 

M MODELS 

ollowing: 

ned t 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Knowledge Group 

Reading for Combi Treatmen

Std. 

Error Impact 

S

Error Impact 

Std. 

Impact Error Impact Error pact 

Std. td. 

Im

Std.

Error

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 

Benchmark -0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04 -0.02 0.05 n.a. n.a. 0.02 0.04 

HLM 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.05 n.a. n.a. 0.05 0.03 

Cohort low Up 1, Fol

Benchmark -0.02 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.03 5 0.02

HLM 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.04 7 0.0 0.05 0.0 0.04 0.03 6 0.03

GRADE Score 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 

Benchmark -0.34 0.68 -0.17 0.61 8 -0.5 0.71 n.a. n.a. .28 0.50 -0

HLM 0.09 0.58 0.41 0.58 -0.32 0.64 n.a. n.a. 0.06 0.39 

Cohort low Up 1, Fol

Benchmark -0.91 0.58 -0.27 0.61 0.32 0.66 0 0.51 .15 0.41 .20 -0

HLM -0.84 0.67 -0.27 0.63 7 0.2 0.66 0.2 0.64 .01 0.42 6 -0

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 

Benchmark -0.11 1.95 4.38 1.47 0.32 2.14 n.a. n.a. 2.07 1.35 

HLM 0.94 1.85 6.45 1.84 1.50 2.08 n.a. n.a. 3.70 1.51 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

Benchmark 1.30 1.85 -0.65 1.63 1.44 1.74 3.17 2.19 1.19 1.22 

HLM 2.03 2.10 -0.44 2.03 1.92 2.09 3.03 2.02 1.30 1.18 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience 

Benchmark 0.35 2.07 1.57 2.29 -0.40 2.22 n.a. n.a. 0.77 1.70 

HLM -0.55 0.73 0.32 0.71 -0.43 0.81 n.a. n.a. -0.25 0.50 

Cohort 1, Follow Up 

Benchmark 0.04 1.91 0.06 1.76 0.10 1.97 0.04 1.96 0.06 1.42 

HLM 1.33 1.88 1.94 1.82 3.28 1.89 1.39 1.83 2.29 1.29 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

OTE: Impacts and standard errors are reported using the benchmark approach, which uses generalized estimating equations, 

and HLM. The social studies and science reading comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. Regressionadjusted impacts were calculated taking into account the clustering of students within schools. Variables in this model 

include baseline GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, school 

location, whether students were overage for grade, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher race, and district indicators. 

a

The composite is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by subtracting the mean and 

dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; n.a. = not applicable; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 

N
H.7 

DIFFERENCES IN SPRING TEST ROUPS, FOR STUDENTS WITH 

PRETEST AND POST-TEST OR FOLLOW-UP SCORES 

Difference Between Each of the d the 

TABLE H.3 

 SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL G

Following an Control Group: 

ISS adA

Read for ing for 

led

ned 

Treatm

Gro

Project

CR Re bout Real 

Read

Know ge 

Combi

ent 

up 

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.02 0.04 -0.01 n.a. 0.02 

Number of Students 1,575 n.a. 5,734 

ost-T acher ence 0.03 0.08 0 .a. 0.0

2,118 2,041 

Cohort 2, P est, Te Experi .05 n 6 

Number of Stud 57 1,089 .a. 2,869

Cohort 1, Follow Up 0.06 0.06 0.03 

ents 1,1 623 n

0.01 0.01

Number of Students 994 935 855 868 3,652

GRAD re E Sco

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.61 -0.27 -0.42 n.a. -0.38 

Number of Students 1,564 n.a. 5,711 

rience 0.12 0.12

2,112 2,035 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Expe 0.04 0.18 n.a. 

Number of Stu 20 976 .a. 2,537

rt 1, Follow .61 -0.06 0 44 0.0

dents 1,0 541 n

Coho Up -0 .41 0. 9 

Number of Students 991 933 852 862 3,638 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension sment e Asses Scor

Cohort 2, Post-Test, School Experience -0.36 4.43 0.29 n.a. 1.95

Number of Studentsb n.a. 2,825 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experience 3.34 n.a. 3.29 

1,057 990 778 

0.43 6.49* 

Number of Stude

Cohort 1, F

nts

 Up 

b

 512 272 1,258

ollow .13 -0.34 1 20 1.4

474 n.a. 

2 .88 3. 7 

Number of Students 452 24 1,787 b 484 427 4

Sc eading Compr ience R e n As hensio s nt Sc essme ore 

Cohort 2, Post-T hool Experi est, Sc ence 0.63 1.47 -0.33 n.a. 0.84 

Number of Students 1,029 n.a. 2,844 

Cohort 2, Post-Test, Teacher Experien 1 n.a. 2.67 

b 1,034 781 

ce 3.17 2.69 2.1

Number of Studentsb 499 270 n.a. 1,267 

ollow 3 83 2.2

498 

Cohort 1, F Up 1.39 2.03 .38 1. 6 

Number of Students 488 468 27 1,801 b 418 4

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administe

: R ion-ad impa ere calculated taking into a t the ering dents n sch

Variables in this model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student English 

nts were overage for grade, teacher gender, teacher age, 

teacher race, and district indicators. 

a

The composit

mean and div

the three z-sc

p Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; n.a. = not applicable; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual 

Reading Fluency. 

red by study team. 

NOTE egress justed cts w ccoun clust of stu withi ools. 

language learner status, school location, whether stude

e is based on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted into a z-score by subtracting the 

iding by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The composite is the simple average of

ores. 

b

These sample sizes are smaller than for the other tests because students were randomly assigned to take either the Social Studies 

or the Science Reading Comprehension Assessment, and no student took both. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are adjusted for 

multiple-hypotheses testing. 

GRADE = Grou
H.8 

Interacting Treatment Status with Continuous Measures of Prior Achievement 

The use of continuou o achievement subgroup 

ndings. Our benchmark subgroup analyses compared impacts for students with above-median 

prior achievement to impacts for students ed 

in Chapter III, we also estimated several other variations based on different cutoffs to form

subgroups.) As an additional sensitivity test, we also estimated l i co 

measure of prior achievement was interac th t ndica ariab

gnificant t shown in table). The 

 what was presented in Chapter III is for subgroups for by 

on levels. I bench k mode scussed hapter III, we 

lly significantly greater t for S stude ith com hensio ls 

 the sample relative to those who scored in the m e third. ese sensitivity 

tests, none of the interactions between the treatment GRADE scores were 

ce Teachers 

erience subgroup results were not sensitive to the subgroup toff us e 

assessed the sensitivity the teacher experience 

e used 10 years of experience (the y’s median) as the cutoff. 

effects of the interventions on test scores for students taught by 

than five years of experi and students taught by teachers with five re 

ce. In both sets of analys for both the fifth- and sixth-grade components of 

of the study), we found statistically significant differences in subgroup 

impacts (see Appendix L tab

cher Practice Scales 

the sensitivity of the ben ark approach to the way in which we constructed 

benchmark approach to forming teacher 

ractice scales used averages of behavior tallies across classroom observation intervals for each 

each of the

(shown in hose based on averages (shown in Table II.19), except the 

p

omprehension to create a Teaching Comprehension scale, and all items regarding teaching 

f tallies from the classroom observations. There were no 

 (Table H.5). 

s subgroup indicators changed one of the tw

fi

with below-median prior achievement. (As describ

 the 

 a mode ntinuous

tor v

n which a

ted wi reatment i les. 

We find no statistically si

differs from

 in tions terac in these analyses (no

one finding that med 

students’ baseline comprehensi n the mar ls di in C

found a statistica impac CRIS nts w pre n leve

in the top third of iddl In th

indicator and baseline 

statistically significant. 

Impacts for Novi

Teacher exp cu ed. W

of impacts to the way in which we defined

subgroups. In one approach, w stud

In the other, we compared the 

teachers with less ence or mo

years of experien es (

the second year no

les). 

Sensitivity of Tea

We assessed chm

the teacher practice scales. As noted in Chapter II, the 

p

teacher and item. As a sensitivity test, we also constructed the scales using the same items for 

 scales, but using sums of behavior tallies across intervals. Findings based on sums 

Table H.4) were similar to t

statistically significant, negative effect observed for Project CRISS on the Traditional Interaction 

scale based on averages was no longer statistically significant when the scale was based on sums. 

As an additional sensitivity test, we considered a different set of teacher instructional 

ractices scales. These scales were constructed by grouping all items pertaining to teaching 

c

vocabulary to create a Teaching Vocabulary scale. These scales were also created in two ways: 

using sums and using averages o

statistically significant differences between treatment and control group teachers’ scores on any 

of these scales
H.9 

D

TABLE H.4 

IFFERENCE IN SPRING CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP 

COHORT 2 TEACHERS, FOR SCALES BASED ON SUMS OF TALLIES ACROSS 

OBSERVATION INTERVALS 

 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the 

Control Group: 

Control 

Group Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Treatment 

Group 

Combined 

Traditional Interaction Scale 502.00 -2.94 -1.70 3.00 -1.11 

Reading Strategy Guidance Scale 499.49 1.51 0.97 0.66 1.08 

Classroom Management Scale 502.70 30.46 45.12 53.57 40.89 

Number of Teachers in Cohort 2a

 54 53 46 31 130 

. 

NOT

number of teachers shown in this row is the number of teachers participating in the study. 

agnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

luency. 

SOURCE: Classroom observations

E: The scales presented in this table were constructed to capture the frequency of the behaviors in each 

instructional practice domain shown above, using sums of tallies across observation intervals for each 

teacher and item. For each scale, the numbers reported in the column labeled “Control Group Mean” 

are the average predicted outcomes for all students as if they were in the control group. Regressionadjusted impacts were calculated taking into account the clustering of teachers within schools. 

Variables in this model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, 

student English language learner status, school location, whether students were overage for grade, 

teacher gender, teacher age, teacher race, and district indicators. Smaller scale values represent lower 

levels of behaviors in the instructional practice domain, while larger values represent higher values of 

the behaviors. 

a

The 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Di

F
H.10 

T

D

C

ABLE H.5 

IFFERENCES IN SPRING CLASSROOM PRACTICES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUP 

OHORT 2 TEACHERS, FOR TEACHING COMPREHENSION AND TEACHING 

VOCABULARY SCALES 

Difference Between Each of the Following and the 

Control Group: 

Control 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

Teaching Comprehension Scale, 

Based on Averages of Tallies 500.43 -1.13 -1.55 0.78 -0.81 

Teaching Comprehension Scale, 

n Averages of Tallies 500.72 -3.81 -2.07 4.42 -1.13 

s o

Number o

Based on Sums of Tallies 500.59 -0.55 -0.11 2.21 0.31 

Teaching Vocabulary Scale, Based 

o

Teaching Vocabulary Scale, Based 

on Sum f Tallies 501.93 -3.27 -0.22 4.95 -0.11 

f Teachers in Cohort 2a

 54 53 46 31 130 

SOURCE: 

NOTE: 

chools. Variables in this model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student 

r students were 

ators. Smaller scale 

a

The number of teachers shown in this row is the number of teachers participating in the study. 

GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Reading 

Fluency. 

Classroom observations. 

The scales presented in this table were constructed to capture the frequency of the behaviors in each 

instructional practice domain shown above. For each scale, the numbers reported in the column labeled 

“Control Group Mean” are the average predicted outcomes for all students as if they were in the 

control group. Regression-adjusted impacts were calculated taking into account the clustering of 

teachers within s

ethnicity and race, student English language learner status, school location, whethe

overage for grade, teacher gender, teacher age, teacher race, and district indic

values represent lower levels of behaviors in the instructional practice domain, while larger values 

represent higher values of the behaviors. 
H.11 

Year 1 Impacts for Schools That Remaine or Both Years 

the study. In

e impact estimates. In the second year, 61 of those 89 schools agreed to continue participating 

in the study. To examine whether the nature of the Year 1 i

61 schools participating in the secon year ha ated 

impacts for (1) students in schools that participated in the study for two year

schools that participated in only th ese analyses, we found that had 

we estimated impacts in the first year using onl 1 sc t co part in 

the second year, we would have obs one a l st significant negat

in the first year of the study. In particular, those analyses showed a statistically significant 

negative impact of Read for Real on post-test scores from the first year of the study (effect size: 

-0

d in Study f

One additional sensitivity test conducted relates to the impacts estimated in the first year of

 the first year, all 89 schools that agreed to participate in the study were included in 

th

mpacts might have differed if only the

d participated in the first year, we estim

s and (2) students in 

d

e first year of the study. In th

erved

y the 6

dditiona

hools tha

atistically 

ntinued icipating 

ive impact 

.16) (not shown in table). 
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX I 

KEY DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR CLASSROOM OBSERVATION AND 

FIDELITY DATA
This page is inten onally left blank. ti
I.3 

TABLE I.1 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXPOSITORY READING COMPREHENSION CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT ITE

AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES EACH PRACTICE WAS OBSERVED DURING THE 10-MINUTE OBSERVATION INT

Year 1 Y

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Reliability, All 

Observation Pairs

Reliability, 

Excluding 

Observation Pairs 

with Zero Tallies Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

R

Ob

Part I, Comprehension

Activates prior knowledge and/or previews text before reading 

Teacher models 0.01 0.04 .949 .925 0.00 0.02 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides 

examples and elaborations 0.61 0.72 .937 .896 0.71 1.02 

Students practice 1.07 1.24 .982 .963 1.06 1.35 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students about text structure 

Teacher models 0.00 0.03 1.00a n.a.

b 0.00 0.04 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides 

examples and elaborations 0.24 0.54 .974 .964 0.32 0.67 

Students practice 0.34 0.78 .978 .967 0.50 1.02 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to use comprehension strategies 

Teacher models 0.01 0.04 .021 .973 0.01 0.11 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides 

examples and elaborations 1.22 1.59 .978 .970 1.03 1.28 

Students practice 1.75 2.09 .981 .974 1.78 1.99 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches students how to generate questions 

Teacher models 0.00 0.04 .798 1.00 0.00 0.03 Teacher explains, reviews, provides 

examples and elaborations 0.24 0.41 .790 .677 0.27 0.40 

Students practice 0.43 0.62 .916 .893 0.47 0.71 

Explicit comprehension instruction that teaches text features to interpret text 

Teacher models 0.00 0.02 .778 1.00 0.00 0.02 

Teacher explains, reviews, provides 

examples and elaborations 0.19 0.33 .943 .914 0.17 0.37 

Students practice 0.24 0.46 .870 .806 0.22 0.45 

Teacher asks students to justify their responses 0.24 0.38 .656 .504 0.27 0.41 
Table I.1 (continued)

I.4 

Year 1 Y

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Reliability, All 

ion Pairs

Observation Pairs 

with Zero Tallies Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

R

Observat 

Reliability, 

Excluding 

Ob

Teacher asks questions based on material 

in the text that are beyond the literal level 0.96 1.19 .941 .922 0.90 1.14 

Teacher elaborates, clarifies, or links 

concepts during and after text reading 1.29 1.34 .941 .929 1.17 1.28 

Part I, Vocabulary

Teacher provides an explanation an

definition or asks a student to re

d/or a 

ad a 

definition 0.71 0.72 .905 .879 0.54 0.62 

T

ents’ 

responses 0.87

 .922

T s 

ot 

meaning 0.09

1.39 1.46 .967 .963 1.47 1.42 

unity to apply 

using context 

 .938

eacher provides examples, contrasting

examples, multiple meanings, immediate elaborations to stud

0.99 .971 .961 0.80 0.91 

Teacher uses visuals/pictures, gestures 

related to word meaning, facial expressions, or demonstrations to discuss/demonstrate word meanings 

eacher teaches word-learning strategie

s, word parts, ro

0.23 0.54 .881 0.21 0.46 

using context clue

0.21 .970 .969 0.09 0.21 

Students do or are asked to do something

that requires knowledge of words 

Students are given an opport

word-learning strategies clues, word parts, and root meaning 0.12 0.52 .918 0.10 0.27 

Part I, Gro Arrangement Text Reading uping s and 

Teacher is working with:

Whole class (>75% of class) 

Large group (> 6 students, < 75% of 

0.82 0.26 .924 n.a. 0.85 0.22 

 .919 n.a. 

 .528 n.a. 

ral 

uddy oral reading .929 n.a. 

0.17 0.27 .737 n.a. 0.12 0.24 

class) 0.02 

0.21 

0.12 

0.29

.962 n.a. 0.02 

0.16 

0.10 

0.24 

Small groups (3-6 students) Pairs 0.09 0.19 .852 n.a. 0.08 0.15 

An individual No direct student contact 

0.04 

0.01 

0.10 

0.06

.924 n.a. 0.05 

0.01 

0.15 

0.06 

Text Reading (applies to reading connected text) 

Supported oral reading (includes cho

and round-robin reading) 

t reading 

0.39 0.36 .908 n.a. 0.46 0.37 

Independent silenIndependent or b

0.25 

0.32 

0.32 

0.35

.956 n.a. 0.22 

0.21 

0.28 

0.30 

Teacher reads aloud 
Table I.1 (continued)

I.5 

Year 1 Y

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Reliability, All 

Observation Pairs

Reliability, 

Excluding 

Observation Pairs 

with Zero Tallies Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

R

Ob

Teacher reads aloud with students 

following along silently 0.16 0.26 .865 n.a. 0.24 0.31 

Text not present 0.05 

0.23 

0.15 

0.25

.814 n.a. 0.07 

0.25 

0.15 

0.24 

Text present but not being read .788 n.a. 

Part II, Overall Effectiven Instruction ess of 

Gave inaccurate and/or confusing 

explanations or feedback 0.03 0.13 .334 n.a. 0.08 0.21 

Missed opportunity to correct or address 

error 0.05 0.20 1.00 n.a. 0.09 0.24 

Provided opportunities for most students 

to participate actively during teacherled instruction 

Paced instruction so that the length of the 

0.87 0.30 .844 n.a. 0.82 0.34 

es 

0.88 0.28 .813 n.a. 0.82 0.34 

T king 0.32 0.41 .797 n.a. 0.26 0.39 U

reading (does not include fill-in-theers) .874 n.a. 

comprehension or vocabulary activitiwas appropriate for this age group 

aught using outlining and/or note ta

sed graphic organizers 0.33 0.43 .888 n.a. 0.29 0.38 

Kept students thinking for two or more 

seconds before calling on a student to respond to a complex question 0.62 0.45 .711 n.a. 0.49 0.46 

Gave independent/pairs/small-group 

practice in answering comprehension questions or applying comprehension strategy(ies) with expected written product 

Used writing activities in response to 

0.56 0.45 .769 n.a. 0.47 0.44 

blank or one-word answ 0.39 0.45 0.34 0.41 

Part II, Overa agement/Responsiveness to Student ll Man s

Teacher maximized the amount of time 

available for instruction 3.25 0.82 .861 n.a. 3.26 0.78 

T vior 

rder to avoid disruptions 

rning 

n.a. 3.39 

 student 

p off 

0 .602 n.a. 3.12 

eacher managed student beha

effectively in oand provide productive leaenvironments 3.40 0.74 .863 0.80 

Teacher redirected discussion if a

response was leading the groutopic/focus 3.3 0.73 0.92
Table I.1 (continued)

I.6 

Year 1 Y

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Reliability, All 

Observation Pairs

Reliability, 

Excluding 

Observation Pairs 

with Zero Tallies Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

R

Ob

Part II, Overal dent Engagement During Observatio l Stu n

Student engagement during the first half 

of the observation session 2.64 0.55 .842 n.a. 2.72 0.51 

Student engagement during the remainder 

of the observation session 2.58 0.59 .873 n.a. 2.61 0.58 

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

Reliability was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficient he Year 1 and Year 2 table panes the first ility colu

econd ons observer pairs that reported zero p item (note t

bulary and comprehension sections of Part I where observers recorded tallies of the number of times teachers en

all of th r items). rt I vocabulary and comprehension items, the mean tion reliability 

oss al bserved nute intervals (up to 10 intervals pe

aT e inc ent with th orted standa iation, which is er than zero. Th urs beca subset 

obser s is used in calculating the means and standard deviations. For this item, the obse s used fo

al to 1.0. 

ted as there were no remaining observer pairs after dropping the pairs with zero tallies. 

NOTE: s. In t above,

 tallies on that s

reliab

ecific 

observations, while the s relevant only for the vocaapplicable] is shown for 

column removes from the calculati

e othe

l the o

For Pa

 10-mi

s, standard devia s, and 

of the classroom tallies acr

his reliability estimate of 1.0 seems to b

r teacher). 

onsist e rep rd dev great is occ use only a 

reliability estimates, while the full set of 

ds to a reliability estima

vation all of rvation 

tallies, which correspon te equ

bInter-rater reliability could not be calcula

n.a. = not applicable. 
I.7 

BLE I.2 

DESCRIPTIVE STA R CT CRISS FIDELITY OBSERVATION ITEMS 

Year 1 Year 2 

TA

TISTICS FO PROJE

Percentage 

Standard 

Deviation Percentage 

Standard 

Deviation 

Teachers Obs d Have ollo uring the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a erve to Done the F wing D

Provide instruction or lead activities 

background knowledge about a topic bef

students read about it 67.31 46.91 67.35 46.89 

to generate 

 or concept ore 

Help students set goals and determin bef

beginning to read 63.46 46.87 61.22 48.72 

Have students read a written text 84.62 36.08 91.84 27.38 

Lead students during / ter rea

transforming in ation activities ( , 

graphic organiz uided discussion .69 37.83 85.71 34.99 

Include inform formal writing in the transformi

activities (including note taking) .92 40.34 79.59 40.30 

Use the transfo g v to tea o

the lesson .92 40.34 75.51 43.00 

Discuss or reflect on students’ metac s

during the trans ing activities .15 48.95 42.86 49.49 

Lead the whole ss in a reflection d e

of the lesson us qu o uch as: —b

 —b 16.33 36.96 

A. Metacog on ou 

compreh ion? 

B. Backgro knowledge: Did 

thinking about what you alrea

C. Purpose setting: u have s

D. Active involve

engaged? 

E. Discussion: How did discussi

thinking? 

F. Writing: How y use wr

learn? 

G. Transformation: What were th y

you transformed information? h

you? 

H. Teacher modelin id I e

Number of Teach 54 53 

e a purpose 

ding in 

for example

) 

ch the content

ognitive proce

iscussion at th

evaluate your 

I assist you in 

dy knew? 

 clear purpose

e you actively

on clarify your

iting to help yo

e different wa

 How did this 

nough modelin

ore 

ng 

f 

ses 

 end 

? 

u 

s 

elp 

g? 

 and or af

form

er, g

al or

rmin

form

cla

ing 

niti

ens

und

82

76

76

46

 acti ities

esti

: How did y

ns s

 Did y

ment: How wer

o

did ou 

g: D do 

ersc

SOURCE: Classro ti 

a

Fidelity observati o t a p e assigned curricula; however, all teachers are 

included in these s. e e ed using Project CRISS was 94.23 percent in Year 

1 and 94.09 perce 2 assumed that te h t implementing the curricula did not engage in the 

activities listed in

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 

om o

ons w

 calcu

nt in

 this 

bserva

ere c

lation

 Year 

table. 

ons.

nduc

 Th

. We

ed only for te

 percentage of

chers im

teachers w

achers w

. 

lementing th

ho r

o we

port

re no
I.8 

TABLE I.3 

DE RI IV T IC O A E T

D t 

SC PT E S ATIST

L

S F

earn 

R R

Obser

EAD F

vation 

OR RE

ays 

L FID LITY OBSERVA ION ITEMS

Prac ice Obser

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 

e e 

d

a t

d

Perc ntag atio 

St

De

andar

viatio

d 

n Percentage 

Stan

Devi

ard 

tion Percen age 

Stan

Devi

ard 

n 

Teache e t a rs Obs rved o H ve Done the Following During the T T s er serv ime When heir Clas es W e Ob ed:a

Before ng Readi

Readexplastrategy

s or dent to read t

nati Before Readi

 5 8.7 .35 55 .79 

asks a stu

on of the 

he 

ng focus 

5 .00 49.75 6 5 46 54. 49

Discusse gy with stud 5 5.0 .30 Reads or dent to read the informati My Thinking box 55.00 49.75 50.00 50.00 n.a. n.a. 

Asks stud ply the strategy 45.00 49.75 43 49.6 57.58 49.42 

Discusse comment n.a. n.a. n.a. 48.48 49.98 

During Reading

s the strate

asks a stu

on in the 

ents to ap

s students’

ents 4 .00 49.75 7 0 43 54.55 49.79 

.75

n.a. 

1 

s 

Reads or dent to read the explanati During Readstrategy 60.00 81.25 48.48 49.98 

asks a stu

on of the ing focus 

48.99 39.03 

Discusse gy with the students 65.00 47.70 62.50 48.41 n.a. n.a. 

Reads or dent to read the informati My Thinking box (notes from the rtner) 68.75 46. 42.42 49.42 Asks stud are their thinking about the strate 60.00 48.99 50.00 50.00 n.a. n.a. Reminds o write notes about the strategy n.a. n.a. n 36.36 48.10 Stops and addre ses the My Thinking notes at the “red strategy buttons” 65.00 47.70 62.50 48.41 69.70 45.96 

s the strate

asks a stu

on in the 

reading pa

ents to sh

gy 

students t

s

60.00 48.99 35 

n.a. .a. 
Table I.3 (continued)

I.9 

Learn Observation Days Practice Obser

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 

Percentage 

S Standard 

Deviation Percentage 

tandard 

Deviation Percentage

Standard 

Deviation 

After Readingb

Reads and/or asks students to read the selection 70.00 45.83 56.25 49.61 69.70 45.96 Reads or asks a student to read tReading focus strategy 35.00 47.70 46.35 24.24 42.85 

he After 

31.25 

Discusses or asks questions about tstrategy Reads or ask

he 

25.00 43.30 31.25 46.35 21.21 40.88 

s a student to read the 

hting 

15.15 35.86 

After 

n.a. 

Comprehension

information in the My Thinking box 20.00 40.00 31.25 46.35 n.a. n.a. 

Gives a written assignment highligthe After Reading focus strategy n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Calls on students to implement the Reading focus strategy 15.00 35.71 31.25 46.35 n.a. 

Administers the open book comprehension 

—

c

 —

c

 —

c

 —

c 9.09 28.75 

test 

Corrects tests with the class —c — — — — —

— — — — — 

Organizing Information

c c c c c 

Discusses responses —c c c c c c 

Reads or asks a student to read the information from the reading partner 20.00 40.00 18.75 39.03 n.a. n.a. Discusses the graphic organizer 30.00 45.83 —c —c n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to complete the graphic organizer n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12.12 32.64 
Table I.3 (continued)

I.10 

Learn Observation Days Practice Obser

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 

Percentage Percentage 

Standard 

Deviation 

Standard 

Deviation 

Standard 

Deviation Percentage 

Writing for Comprehension

Reads or asks a student to read the information from the reading partner 15.00 35.71 —c —c n.a. n.a. Reads or asks a student to read the summary 20.00 40.00 —c —c n.a. n.a. 

Asks students to write a summary baseon their completed graphic organizer 

d 

 to 

Di ses the s of a Summary

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. —

c

 —

c 

Identifies how the paragraphs and sentences in the summary correspondthe information on the graphic organizer 15.00 35.71 —c —c n.a. n.a. 

scus Three Part

Introduction 20.00 40.00 —c —c n.a. n.a. Body 20.00 40.00 Conclusion 20.00 —c n.a. n.a. 

r = 31

—

c

 —

c

n.a. n.a. 

40.00 —c

Sample Size:d First Year = 57; Second Yea

 observations. 

 were conducted only for teachers impleme the achers included se calc

teachers who reported using Read for Real was 86.79 percent in Year 1 and 83.33 percent in Year 2. We assumed that teachers who were not did not engage in the activities listed in this table. 

e not includ e table e devel y ntial for ementatio the Re

her confidential

is row is the number participating in the study. 

n.a. = not applicable. SOURCE: Classroom

aFidelity observations nting assigned curricula; however, all te are in the bThe vocabulary and fluency items ar ed in th becaus opers noted the were not esse impl n of cValue suppressed to protect teac ity. dThe number of teachers presented in th
I.11 

TABLE I.4 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR READABOUT FIDELITY OBSER N I S 

 Year ear 2 

VATIO TEM

1 Y

 Percentage 

Standard 

Deviation Percen 

Standard 

tage Deviation 

Teachers Observed to Have Done the Following During the Time When Their s Were Observed:a Classe

Used the ReadAbout m als ateri 91.3 28.18 5.5 20.61 0 9 6 

Computer workstation used 89.13 31.13 8.8 46.29 

Independent workstatio ed 7 49.24 5.5 49.69 

Provided direction instruction (explain and/or model) 

on the comprehension or vocabulary strategy or skill 76.09 42.66 7.7 41.57 

Provided opportunities for students to apply the 

comprehension or vocabulary skill (guided practice) 80.43 39.67 0.0 40.00 

Provided studen stru o e selected 6+1 

Writing Trait 0.00 0.00 — —b

Provided oppor ies to apply the 6+1 Writing Trait 

Model 0. 0.00 — —b

Sample Sizec

 53 4

6

5

7

8

9 

6 

8 

0 

b

b

6 

n us 58. 0 

ts in

tunit

ction n th

00 

SOURCE: lassroom observations. 

a

Fidelity observations w co y for teache n e assigned c ; h

are included in these lat h rcenta c who rted using R t 100 p nt in 

Year 1 and 95.71 percent in Year 2. We assumed that who were not impl g t urricul not 

engage in the activities listed in this table. 

b

Value suppressed to p t te r co ential

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating e .

C

ere

calcu

nducted 

ions. T

onl

e pe

rs im

f tea

teachers

plem

hers

enti g th

 repo

urricula

eadAbou

ementin

owever, all teachers 

was 

he c

ge o erce

a did 

rotec ache nfid ity. 

in th study
I.12 

DESCRIPT WLEDGE 

DIRECT INSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DAYS 

Year

TABLE I.5 

IVE STATISTICS FOR FIDELITY OBSERVATION ITEMS FOR READING FOR KNO

 1 

rcent

St

Pe age De

andard 

viation 

Teachers Observed to Have Done the Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Post the reading goal 38.09 50.32 

Present the reading goal 57.14 50

 goal 38.09 50

and instruction 

unit.) —b

 —

ext or about a 

66.67 49

y, recently 

71.42 47.67 

/strategy, or (2) ask 

ents to apply a skill/strategy 52.38 51.1

mmended pacing for the lesson 57.14 50.96 

ring the lesson 52.38 51.18 

 Sizec

 54 

.32 

Present the cooperative learning .32 

Ask students to review vocabulary or provide practice 

(Exception: This is not done on the first day of a new b

Build background knowledge about the topic of t

skill/strategy .24 

Explain a skill/strategy or remind students of a skill/strateg

learned 

Read the text aloud and (1) think aloud or model a skill

the stud 8 

Follow the reco

Awa cooperation and/or improvement points du rd

Sample

OURCE: Classroom observations. 

a

Fidelity observations were conducted only

S

 for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

eachers who reported using Reading for Knowledge in Year 

 were not implementing the curricula did not engage in the 

b

Value suppressed to protect teacher confidentiality. 

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 

are included in these calculations. The percentage of t

1 is 83.33 percent. We assumed that teachers who

activities listed in this table. 
I.13 

TABLE I.6 

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FIDELITY OBSERVATION ITEMS FOR READING FOR KNOWLEDGE 

COOPERATIVE GROUPS OBSERVATION DAYS

Year 1 

Percentage

Standard 

Deviation 

Teachers Observed to Have Done the Following During the Time When Their Classes Were Observed:a

Post the reading goal 60.61 49.90 

Present the reading goal 87.88 33.60 

Present the cooperative learning goal 66.67 48.26 

Ask students to review vocabulary or provide practice and instruction 

(Exception: This is not done on the first day of a new unit.) 5 5

t the day’s 

81.82 39.66 

Chart individual students’ progress on the setting goals and charting progress 

27.27 45.68 

Review routines for Team Talk discussion 51.52 50.70 

Circulate within the classroom and monitor team discussions and provide 

7 4 0 

ponse and reasoning to 

75.76 43.99 

ample Size 54 

4.55 0.40 

Use a whole-group or partner activity to discuss key points abou

skill/strategy 81.82 39.66 

Provide feedback and prompts to partner pairs during partner reading 

forms during partner reading 

Read Team Talk questions aloud 60.61 49.90 

prompts 8.79 2.0

Ask team members to share with the class their res

Team Talk questions 

Follow the recommended pacing for the lesson 54.55 50.40 

Award cooperation and/or improvement points during the lesson 60.61 49.19 

c S

SOURCE: Classroom observations. 

re conducted only for teachers implementing the assigned curricula; however, all teachers 

are included in these calculations. The percentage of teachers who reported using Reading for Knowledge in 

Year 1 is 83.33 percent. We assumed that teachers who were not implementing the curricula did not engage in the 

activities listed in this table. 

c

The number of teachers presented in this row is the number participating in the study. 

a

Fidelity observations we
This page is intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX J 

UNADJUSTED MEANS
This page is inten onally left blank. ti
I.3 

TABLE J.1 

UNADJUSTED MEANS FOR TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS 

Control 

G

Project Read for 

eal 

Reading for 

Knowledge 

Combined 

Treatment 

roup CRISS ReadAbout R Group 

Cohort 1 

Pretest (Fall 2006) Test Scores 

TOSCRF 88.24 89.08 87.84 87.84 89.7 88.62 

 

GRADE 99.83 100.86 99.58 99.25 101.13 100.21 

Post-Test (Spring 2007) Test Scores 

Composite 0.02 0.06 -0.04 -0.07 0.02 -0.01 

 

GRADE 100.80 100.70 99.83 100.09 101.32 100.75 

Social Studies Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 501.79 501.15 499.81 497.37 501.05 499.87 

Science Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 501.51 502.53 499.99 498.17 499.39 500.06 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) Test Scores 

Compositea -0.03 0.05 -0.07 -0.05 0.08 0.00 

 

GRADE 96.44 97.35 95.69 95.75 97.69 96.64 

 

Social Studies Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 500.08 501.78 497.78 498.04 503.47 500.30 

Science Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 497.66 502.03 498.49 500.04 501.84 500.62 

Number of Studentsb

 1,362 1,319 1,245 1,228 1,195 4,987 

Cohort 2 

Pretest (Fall 2007) Test Scores 

TOSCRF 89.26 89.56 88.45 89.52 n.a. 89.13 

 

GRADE 100.54 101.46 100.24 100.23 n.a. 100.73 

Post-Test (Spring 2008) Test Scores

Compositea 0.00 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 n.a. 0.00 

 

GRADE 101.34 101.48 100.42 100.91 n.a. 100.96 

Social Studies Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 500.81 502.09 503.48 500.57 n.a. 502.28 

Science Reading 

Comprehension Assessment 503.10 502.87 502.94 502.28 n.a. 502.77 

Number of Studentsc

 1,194 1,201 1,108 639 n.a. 2,948 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 
Table J.1 (continued) 

 

J.4 

NOTE: The social studies and science reading n assessments were developed by ETS. 

a

The composite is b into a z-score by 

racting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The 

composite is the simple average of the three z-scores. 

The number of students presente ow is ber tud ipa d

c

The number of students presented in this row is the n ohort 2 students participating in the study. 

ional Testing Service; nt and stic Ev ation; n.a. = t 

TOSCRF = Test of Sile extual R Fluenc

 comprehensio

ased on the three tests presented in this table. Each test score is converted

subt

b d in this r the num of Cohort 1 s ents partic ting in the stu y. 

umber of C

ETS = Educat

applicable; 

 GRA

nt Cont

DE = Group Reading Assessme Diagno alu no

eading y. 
APPENDIX K 

IMPACT TABLES INCLUDING P-VALUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUSTED 

FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS 
This page is intentionally left blank.
K.3 

TABLE K.1 

DIFF RENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS, COMPARING 

FIFTH GRADE COHORTS 1 AND 2 WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS 

FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS 

Group CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Combined 

Treatment 

Group 

E

Control Project 

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.04 

Effect Size -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.05 

p-value 0.87 0.40 0.09 0.16 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact -0.04 0.00 0.05 -0.02 0.02 

Effect Size 0.00 0.06 -0.02 0.02 

p-value 0.99 0.28 0.76 0.61 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.06 

Difference in Effect Size 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 0.90 0.18 0.35 0.21 

GRADE Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 100.55 -0.19 -0.64 -0.76 -0.60 

Effect Size -0.01 -0.05 -0.06 -0.04 

p-value 0.77 0.32 0.19 0.19 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 100.76 -0.28 -0.08 -0.56 -0.26 

Effect Size -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 

p-value 0.68 0.90 0.42 0.60 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact -0.09 0.56 0.20 0.34 

Difference in Effect Size -0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 

p-value for the Difference 0.92 0.54 0.81 0.64 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.30 -1.36 -0.38 -2.28 -1.18 

Effect Size -0.05 -0.01 -0.08 -0.04 

p-value 0.51 0.78 0.11 0.28 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 499.83 0.09 4.63* 0.47 2.21 

Effect Size 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.07 

p-value 0.96 0.00 0.82 0.12 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 1.45 5.01* 2.75 3.39 

Difference in Effect Size 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.11 

p-value for the Difference 0.57 0.02 0.26 0.06 
Table K.1 (continued) 

K.4 

Combined 

Control 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Treatment 

Group 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.60 0.31 -1.07 -2.71 -1.38 

Effect Size 

p-value 

Coh 008) 

 0.

0.01 

84 

-0.04 

0.54 

-0.10 

0.15

-0.05 

0.31 

ort 2 Students (Spring 2

Impact 501.59 0.58 1.66 -0.31 0.83 

Effect Size 

Difference Between Cohort 1 ohort 2

0.02 0.06 -0.01 0.03 

p-value 0.78 0.48 0.89 0.63 

and C

Difference in Impact 0.27 2.73 2.41 2.21 

Difference in Effect Size 

he Difference 

 of Students in Cohort 1b

 1, 8 1 1 1 3

0.01 0.10 0.09 0.08 

p-value for t 0.91 0.30 0.42 0.31 

Number 36 ,316 ,248 ,227 ,791 

Number of Students in Cohort 2c 1,196 1,202 1,111 634 2,947 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered y study te

NOTE: For each outcome, the numbers re lumn labeled “Control Group” are the average 

predicted outcomes for all l group. The numbers reported in the 

remaining columns are, by size, and (3) the p-value of the impact. 

For each outcome, the differences bet hort i are al rted. T ial stud 

science reading comprehension assessments were d by Regress justed i s 

were calculated taking into account the clustering of students withi ols. Va this l 

include pretest GRADE an ty and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, teacher distri ators. 

site is based on the three tests presented i this table test score is conver o a z-sc 

ing the mean and dividing tudents sampl 

composite is the simple average of

presented in this row is the number of ude rticipati he stud

ach experimental condition with post-tes p n . 

c

The number of students p cipating in the study. The 

proportion of students in each experimen reported in Appendix G. 

ucational Testing Service; GRADE p Rea Assess nd Di c Eval ; 

st of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency. 

*Statistically different at the .05 level. nce is based on p-values that are not 

 for multiple-hypotheses testing. 

 b am. 

ported in the co

students as if they were in the contro

row: (1) the impact, (2) the effect 

ween co mpacts so repo he soc ies and

eveloped ETS. ion-ad mpact

n scho riables in mode

d TOSCRF scores, student ethnici

race, and ct indic

a

The compo

subtract

n . Each

f the 

ted int

in the 

ore by

 by the standard deviation o variable e. The

 the three z-scores. 

 for s

b

The number of students Cohort 1 st nts pa ng in t y. The 

proportion of students in e t scores is re orted in Appe dix G

resented in this row is the number of Cohort 2 students parti

tal condition with post-test scores is

ETS = Ed

F = Te

= Grou ding ment a agnosti uation

TOSCR

This measure of statistical significa

adjusted
K.5 

TABLE K.2 

FERENCES IN POST-TEST SCORES BETW ATM ND G OM

FIFTH-GRADE COHORT 1 AND 2 STUD ITH ER TUD R TWO

CONSECUTIVE Y COMPARISONS 

Mean 

Pr

C Rea t 

Read for 

Co 

Tre 

G

DIF EEN TRE

ENTS W

ENT A

 TEACH

 CONTROL

S IN THE S

ROUPS, C

Y FO

PARING 

EARS WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS FOR MULTIPLE

Control 

Group oject 

RISS dAbou Real 

mbined

atment

roup 

Composite Test Scorea

Cohort 1 (Sprin 7) Students g 200

Impact 0. 06 -0 -0 - .06 .06 0.09 -0.08 

Effect Size -0 -0 -0 -0

p-value 22 0.09 0.08 

Cohort 2 Stu nts (Sprin 8) 

.07 .08 .10 .09 

 0.34 0.

de g 200

Impact -0. 04 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.05 

Effect Size 0 0 0 0

Difference Between Cohort 1 ohort 

.03 .10 .03 .06 

p-value 0.66 0.10 0.61 0.23 

 and C 2 

Difference in Impact 0.08 0.15* 0.11 0.13* 

Difference Effect Size 0.10 

-value for t e Difference 0.31 

in 0.18 0.14 0.15 

p h 0.02 0.08 0.04 

GRADE Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 101.4 -1.07 -0.94 -1.48 -1.14 

Effect Size 

p-value 

 -0.08 -0.07 -0.11 -0.08 

 0.18 0.21 0.07 0.05 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 100.1 0.16 0.24 -0.21 0.08 

Effect Size 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.01 

p-value 0.84 0.75 0.80 0.89 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 1.23 1.17 1.27 1.23 

Difference in Effect Size 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 

p-value for the Difference 0.26 0.20 0.15 0.13 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 502.6 -3.53 -1.78 -1.56 -2.09 

Effect Size -0.12 -0.06 -0.05 -0.07 

p-value 0.18 0.25 0.45 0.16 

Cohort 2 Students (Spring 2008) 

Impact 500.0 0.27 6.43* 3.03 3.25 

Effect Size 0.01 0.22 0.10 0.11 

p-value 0.93 0.99 0.17 0.07 

Difference Between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

Difference in Impact 3.80 8.21* 4.59 5.34 

Difference in Effect Size 0.13 0.28 0.15 0.18 

p-value for the Difference 0.31 0.00 0.15 0.03 
Table K.2 (continued) 

K.6 

Combined 

Group 

Mean 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

Treatment 

Group 

Control 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Cohort 1 Students (Spring 2007)

Impact 503.4 -0.07 -2.11 -3.04 -1.76 

Effect Size 

p-value 

Coh 008) 

 0.

0.00 

97 

-0.08 

0.38 

-0.11 

0.11 

-0.06 

0.32 

ort 2 Students (Spring 2

Impact 501.7 2.22 2.91 1.87 2.35 

Effect Size 

Difference Between Cohort 1 ohort 

0.08 0.10 0.07 0.08 

p-value 0.30 0.28 0.40 0.22 

 and C 2 

Difference in Impact 2.29 5.02 4.91 4.10 

Difference in Effect Size 

he Difference 

 of Students with Teachers in Study for Two Yearsb

0.08 0.18 0.18 0.15 

p-value for t 0.42 0.10 0.09 0.11 

Number

Cohort 1 02 487 2,234 

2

933 845 9

Cohort 2 949 775 815 478 ,068 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administere by study t

NOTE: For each outcome, the numbers repo n labeled “Control Group Mean” are the average 

predicted outcomes for all l group. The numbers reported in the 

remaining columns are, by size, and (3) the p-value of the impact. 

For each outcome, the differences bet ohort s are a orted. cial studies and 

science reading comprehension assessm nts were ped by Regre djusted ts 

were calculated taking into account the clustering of nts with ools. V s in thi el 

include pretest GRADE an ty and race, student English language 

learner status, school location, wheth ents w erage for grade, tea x, teach e, 

teacher race, and district indicators. 

posite is based on the three tests presented this table. Each test score is conve to a z-s 

subtracting the mean and dividin for students in the sample. The 

le average of the three z-scores. 

of students with nonmissin eacher dat

ETS = Educational Test Diagnostic Evaluation; 

TOSCRF = Test of Silent Contextual Rea

 different at the .05 level. This meas tatisti ificanc sed on es tha ot

multiple-hypotheses testing. 

d eam. 

rted in the colum

students as if they were in the contro

row: (1) the impact, (2) the effect 

ween c impact lso rep The so

e develo ETS. ssion-a impac

 stude in sch ariable s mod

d TOSCRF scores, student ethnici

er stud ere ov cher se er ag

a

The com in rted in core by

g by the standard deviation of the variable 

composite is the simp

b

Counts reflect the number g t a. 

ing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment and

ding Fluency. 

*Statistically

 for 

ure of s cal sign e is ba p-valu t are n

adjusted
K.7 

TABLE K.3 

DIFFERENCES IN POST-TEST AND FOLLOW-UP TEST SCORES BETWEEN TREATMENT AND 

CONTROL GROUPS, COHORT 1 STUDENTS WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS 

Control 

Group 

P

CR S Rea t 

Read for 

Reading 

Kn e 

Co 

Tr

FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS 

ro ct je

IS dAbou Real 

for 

owledg

mbined

eatment 

Group 

Composite Test Scorea

Post- pring 2 Test (S 007)

Impact 0.01 - 1 0.0 -0.03 -0.06 -0.11* -0.07*

Effect Size -0.02 -0.04 -0

 0.75 0.50 0

.06 -0.13 -0.08 

p-value .22 0.01 0.02 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact -0.06 - 1 0.0 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.02 

Effect Size -0 1 

0.96 0.14 0.20 0.38 

Difference Betwe st-Test ollow U

.0 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.03

p-value 0.84 

en Po and F p 

Diffe mpact rence in I 0.01 0.03 0.12* * * 0.17 0.09

Difference i Effect Size 0.01 0.04 

-value for t e Difference 0.91 0.57 

n 0.13 0.18 0.10 

p h 0.04 0.01 0.03 

GRADE Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 100.96 -0.44 -0.68 -0.74 -1.45* -1.01* 

Effect Size 

p-value 

 -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 -0.11 -0.07 

 0.48 0.35 0.22 0.02 0.02 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 96.04 -0.75 -0.14 0.52 0.31 -0.04 

Effect Size -0.05 -0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 

p-value 0.19 0.82 0.44 0.55 0.92 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact -0.31 0.54 1.25 1.76 0.97 

Difference in Effect Size -0.02 0.

p-value for the Difference 0.67 0.

04 0.09 0.13 0.07 

57 0.11 0.02 0.11 

Social Studies Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.40 -0.67 -0.36 -1.38 -1.91 -1.36 

Effect Size -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 -0.06 -0.05 

p-value 0.77 0.83 0.41 0.19 0.21 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 498.15 1.42 -0.65 1.70 3.22 1.08 

Effect Size 0.05 -0.02 0.06 0.11 0.04 

p-value 0.44 0.69 0.34 0.15 0.4 

Difference Between Post-Test and Follow Up 

Difference in Impact 2.09 -0.29 3.08 5.13 2.44 

Difference in Effect Size 0.07 -0.01 0.10 0.17 0.08 

p-value for the Difference 0.39 0.89 0.19 0.06 0.16 
Table K.3 (continued) 

K.8 

Reading Combined 

Control ent 

Group 

Project 

CRISS ReadAbout 

Read for 

Real 

for 

Knowledge 

Treatm

Group 

Science Reading Comprehension Assessment Score 

Post-Test (Spring 2007)

Impact 500.61 0.94 -0.42 -1.14 -5.43* -1.92 

Effect Size 0.03 

0.54 

-0.02 

0.79 

-0.04 

0.61

-0.2 

0.00 

-0.07 

p-value 0.14 

Follow Up (Spring 2008) 

Impact 497.27 3.18 1.37 1.92 1.35 2.23 

Effect Size 

Differ nce Betwe t-Test llow U

0.04 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.07 

p-value 0.48 0.32 0.10 0.51 0.13 

e en Pos and Fo p 

Difference in Impact 0.43 2.33 4.31 6.78* 4.15* 

Difference in Effect Size 

he Difference 

 of Cohort 1 Students 

in Year 1b 27 1,191 4,982 

0.01 0.08 0.14 0.24 0.14 

p-value for t 0.87 0.31 0.16 0.03 0.05 

Number

1,368 1,316 1,248 1,2

Number of Cohort 1 Students 

in Year 2 1, 8 1 3 c 00 ,048 960 893 901 ,802 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests administered by study team. 

NOTE: For each outcome, the number labeled “Control Group” are the average 

predicted outcomes for nts as were i ontrol The nu rte

remaining columns are, by w: (1) th ct, (2) ct size 3) the p of the . 

For each outcome, the dif ences betw pacts f post-te follow also re . 

The social studies and scien assessments were developed by ETS. 

Regression-adjusted imp account lusterin tudents n 

schools. Variables in thi l inclu est GR nd TOS scores, t ethni d 

race, student English language learner s chool location, teache , and district indicators

a

The composite is based on the th is converted into a z-score by 

 and dividing by he standa iation o variable tudents e sampl e 

verage of the th e z-score

The number of students presen pating in the study in Year 

1. The proportion of stude ed in Appendix G. 

c mber of students presented i o t 1 stu particip n the stud 

e proportion of student expe al con fo p test scores is rep 

. 

ETS = Educational Testing Service; GR Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; 

F = Test of Silent Contextual Fluenc

y different at the .05 level. This measur tatistica ificance sed on es that t 

 for multiple-hypotheses te

s reported in the column

all stude if they n the c group. mbers repo d in the 

 ro e impa the effe , and ( -value impact

fer een im or the st and up are ported

ce reading comprehension

acts were cal n

s mode

culated taki g into the c g of s withi

de pret ci

t

ADE a CRF studen ty an

atus, s r race . 

ree tests presented in this table. Each test score

subtracting the mean t rd dev f the for s in th e. Th

composite is the simple a re s. 

b ted in this row is the number of Cohort 1 students partici

nts in each experimental condition with post-test scores is report

The nu n this r

s in each

w is th ber of e num Cohor dents ating i y in

Year 2. Th

Appendix G

riment dition with llow-u orted in

ADE = Group Reading 

TOSCR Reading y. 

*Statisticall

adjusted

e of s l sign is ba p-valu are no

sting. 
SUBGROUP IMPACT TABLES

APPENDIX L 
This page is intentionally left blank.
L.3 

TABLE L.1 

DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE POST-TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, SECOND COHORT OF FIFTH GRADE

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate 

Standard 

error p-value Estimate 

Standard 

error p-value Estimate 

Standard 

error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm 0.04 0.09 0.96 0.03 0.08 0.94 -0.05 0.08 0.90 0Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -0.08 0.06 0.35 -0.06 0.06 0.57 0.00 0.06 1.00 -0Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.12 0.08 0.31 -0.04 0.07 0.89 0.03 0.08 0.95 -0Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.09 0.06 0.29 -0.03 0.05 0.92 -0.08 0.08 0.62 -0Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. middle) 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.99 0.12 0.05 0.06 0Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.03 0.05 0.92 0.02 0.06 0.99 0.01 0.06 1.00 0Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -0.03 0.05 0.92 0.02 0.06 0.99 0.01 0.06 1.0.0 0Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 0.07 0.08 0.72 0.05 0.09 0.91 0.02 0.07 0.99 0Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.05 0.08 0.90 0.02 0.06 0.95 0.03 0.07 0.96 0Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 0.12* 0.05 0.02 -0.02 0.04 0.93 0.01 0.06 1.00 0Classified as ELL 0.14 0.10 0.32 0.09 0.10 0.65 0.46* 0.13 0.00 0

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Median Teaching Experience (11 Years) 0.03 0.10 0.98 -0.17 0.10 0.27 0.14 0.08 0.20 -0More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -0.16 0.10 0.27 -0.08 0.12 0.79 0.02 0.11 0.99 -0Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -0.22 0.11 0.11 -0.01 0.11 1.00 -0.22 0.10 0.09 -0
Table L.1 (continued) 

L.4 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate error p-value Estimate error p-value Estimate error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -0.13 0.08 0.26 -0.13 0.10 0.49 -0.13 0.08 0.25 -0

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) -0.09 0.11 0.76 -0.12 0.13 0.69 -0.03 0.10 0.98 -0In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) - 05 12 0.95 - 08 0.08 0.61 0.11 0.12 69 - 

0. 0. 0. 0. 0

In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 p cent) er 0 01 . 0 09 . 1 00 . 0 15 . 0 08 . 0 20 . 0 19 . 0 11 . 0 28 . 0 

Subgroups Defined by Teach ctices er Pra

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score 99. (4 7) 0 03 . 0 07 . 0 95 . -0 13 . 0 08 . 0 30 . 0 11 . 0 08 . 0 45 . -0Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) - 10 08 0.57 0.01 07 1.00 - 03 09 99 - 

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0

Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (499.9) -0.07 0.07 0.69 -0.01 0.08 1.00 -0.10 0.11 0.73 -0SOURCE: Reading compreNOTE

hension tests administ ed by study team. 

The estimates pres whethe is a di imp for oup list exam ELL 

e to determine whet differe im ve t 2 o ar re not) fied as ELL is statistica

nd year, do Coh LL i ger imp s of the inter entions th t 2 studen s not classified as ELL? p-values p

ltiple-hypotheses testing. The composite is based on the GRADE and the social studies and science reading comprehension tests. Each test sco

subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviati mposite is the simple average of the thre

omprehension assessments were developed by ETS. Variables in the regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, s

l loca eacher r d distri ators. 

ner; ETS = Educational Testing Servi ADE = Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic E aluation; TOSCRF = Test o Silent Conte

 different from zero at the . This p-values multipl ypotheses testing. 

er

: ented in this table re lect f r there ffe ential r act in the second year the subgr ed For . ple, for statu

on her the

ort 2 E

nce in

 students exper

pacts of the inter ntions

ac

between Cohor students wh

an Cohor

e (and a

t

 classi 

the seco for mu

ence lar t v The 

on of the variable for students in the sample. The co

science reading cELL status, schoo tion, t ace, an ct indic

ELL = English language lear ce; GR v f

*Significantly 05 level. measure of statistical significance is based on that are adjusted for e-h
L.5 

TABLE L.2 

DIFFERENCES ON THE GRADE POST-T EN SUBGROUPS, SECO FIFTH GRADERS

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 IN EFFECTS EST BETWE ND COHORT OF 

 Esti 

Sta Sta Sta 

mate

ndard

Error p-value Estimate

ndard

Error p-value Estimate

ndard

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm 0.37 1.36 1.00 0.69 1.24 1.00 -0.30 1.32 1.00 0Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -1.15 0.88 0.77 -0.71 0.87 0.98 -0.40 1.00 1.00 -0Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. m) 

rd 

botto -1.52 0. 1.22 82 -0.93 1. 0. 17 98 -0.68 1.28 1.00 -0

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) -1.65 1.11 0.67 -1.50 0.89 0.53 -2.49 1.58 0.60 -1Pretest OSCR T

i

F score, top third 

(vs. m ddle) 0.08 0.86 1.00 0 55 71 0.99 1 70 0.96 46 0

. 0. . 0.

Pretest GRADE score, anational norm 

bove 

-0.97 0.72 0.75 0.76 0.82 0.95 -1.12 0.84 0.76 0

Pretest GRADE score, above 

sample median - 97 72 0.75 0.76 82 0.95 -1 12 84 76 0

0. 0. 0. . 0. 0.

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.28 1. 0. 1.01 00 86 1.09 0.98 -1.22 1.02 0.84 0Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -1.38 1.10 0.82 0.24 0.91 1.00 -0.60 1.23 1.00 -0Pretest GR score, top third 

vs. mi 0.82 0.69 0.86 

ADE

( ddle) -0.27 0.71 1.00 -0.09 1.06 1.00 0Classifie L d as EL 2.97 1.07 0.06 0.40 1.30 1.00 6.55 2.52 0.09 1

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Experience (11 

Median Teaching 

Years) 1.33 1.21 0.88 -1.39 1.49 0.94 1.99 1.14 0.47 0

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -0.74 1.37 1.00 -1.03 1.48 0.99 -0.85 1.33 0.99 -0Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -2.26 1.53 0.63 -0.06 1.77 1.00 -2.71 1.57 0.45 -1
Table L.2 (continued) 

L.6 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -0.81 1.07 0.98 -1.43 1.55 0.95 -0.69 1.03 0.99 -1

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 09 -1. 1 62 . 0 99 . -1 86 . 2 11 . 0 95 . 0 06 . 1 54 . 1 00 . -0In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) -0.92 1.47 0.99 -1.45 1.17 0.80 0.54 1.82 1.00 -0In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 percent) 0.92 1.14 0.98 2.57 20 0.25 3.51 1.51 18 1

1. 0.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Practices 

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) 1.77 0.89 0.31 - 56 1.26 0.81 2.37 1.05 19 0

1. 0.

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -1.44 1.14 0.80 0.34 0.96 1.00 0.19 1.19 1.00 -0Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( -0.51 1 10 . 1 00 . 0 75 . 1 27 . 1 00 . -0.14 1 27 . 1 00 . -0SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests adminis by stud 

e estimates pres whethe is a dif al imp r for the oup list r examp ELL st 

 determine wheth the differ im v t 2 o ar nd are not) ied as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experi ger impacts of the inter entions than Cohort 2 students not classified as ELL? e p-values pfor multiple-hypotheses testing. The composite is based o ading comprehension tests. Each test sco

ean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. Variables in the regression model include prete

EL us, scho tion, t ra indic

ner; GRADE = Gr m nt and Diagnostic Evaluation; TOSCRF e Reading Fluency. 

 different from zero at the . Th p-values multiple-hypotheses testing. 

tered y team.

NOTE: Th ented in this table r

e

eflect r there

pacts of the inter

ferenti

entions

act in the seco

between Cohor

nd yea

students wh

 subgr

e (a

ed. Fo

 classif

le, for atu

one to r ence in 

ence lar v Th

n the GRADE and the social studies and science re

subtracting the mstudent ethnicity and race, student L stat ol loca eacher ce, and district ators. 

ELL = English language lear oup Reading Assess e = T st of Silent Contextual 

*Significantly 05 level. is easur m e of statistical significance is based on that are adjusted for 
L.7 

TABLE L.3 

DIFFERENCES IN EFF ETS SOCIAL STUDIES P ETWEEN SUBGROUPS, RT OF FIFTH 

Pr SS Real 

ECTS ON THE OST-TEST B SECOND COHO GR

oject CRI ReadAbout Read for 

 Esti 

Sta d Sta d Sta d 

mate

ndar

Error p-value Estimate

ndar

Error p-value Estimate

ndar

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm 1.45 2.68 1.00 -2.23 3.68 1.00 -0.62 2.91 1.00 -0Pretest TOSCRF score, above 

sample median -0 22 2.76 1.00 -0 47 2.57 1.00 2.57 2.88 0.96 0

. .

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. bottom) 

rd 

0.86 3.27 1.00 2.70 3.06 0.97 7.60 3.54 0.24 2

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) 1.24 3.79 1.00 3.95 2.79 0.72 6.08 3.32 0.43 3Pretest TOSCRF sc(vs. m ddle) 

ore, top third 

i 3 11 . 3 14 . 0 94 . 2 76 . 2 37 . 0 87 . 3 08 . 2 20 . 0 72 . 2 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm 3.29 3.23 0.92 -0.98 2.92 1.00 4.09 3.19 0.79 1Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 3 29 . 3 23 . 0 92 . -0 98 . 2 92 . 1 00 . 4 09 . 3 19 . 0 79 . 1 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 8.64 4.29 0.30 0.40 4.34 1.00 3.82 4.92 0.98 4Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

0.01 4.78 1.00 0.14 3.81 1.00 1.77 4.83 1.00 0

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 6.67 3.47 0.37 -1.05 2.16 1.00 0.90 3.08 1.00 1Classified as ELL 4.07 5.20 0.98 1.45 5.36 1.00 12.87 5.62 0.18 3

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Experience (11 

Median Teaching 

Years) 1.40 4.79 1.00 -4.79 3.46 0.71 1.82 4.40 1.00 -0

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -6.62 4.18 0.55 -1.88 4.66 1.00 -5.10 4.08 0.79 -4Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -4.19 5.06 0.97 0.94 3.45 1.00 -2.64 4.70 1.00 -0
Table L.3 (continued) 

L.8 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -5.08 4.33 0.85 -4.44 3.46 0.78 0.28 4.54 1.00 -5

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 43 -6. 4 70 . 0 71 . -12 09* . 4 13 . 0 04 . -10 28 . 4 52 . 0 18 . -8 In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) -3.07 5.26 1.00 -0.24 3.19 1.00 2.32 4.26 1.00 -0In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 percent) 1.40 4.03 1.00 1.76 24 1.00 0.68 4.56 00 1

3. 1.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Practices 

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) - 23 03 1.00 - 60 3.49 0.56 4.24 4.49 94 - 

1. 4. 5. 0. 0

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -0.31 4.30 1.00 0.07 3.42 1.00 -2.00 4.40 1.00 -1Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( 1 24 . 2 98 . 1 00 . -1 62 . 3 57 . 1 00 . -1.67 4 55 . 1 00 . 0 SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests adminis by stud 

e estimates pres whethe is a dif al imp r for th oup list r examp ELL st 

 determine wheth the differ im v t 2 o ar nd are not) ied as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experi ger impacts of the inter entions than Cohort 2 students not classified as ELL? e p-values pfor multiple-hypotheses testing. The social studies reading . Variables in the regression model inclu

hnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. 

ner; ETS = E tional vi ADE Reading sment a agnostic aluation; Te Silent Conte

 zero at th vel. Thi ure of s al sign e is base p-values e multipl otheses . 

tered y team.

NOTE: Th ented in this table r

e

eflect r there

pacts of the inter

ferenti

entions

act in the seco

between Cohor

nd yea

students wh

e subgr

e (a

ed. Fo

 classif

le, for atu

one to r ence in 

ence lar v Th

 comprehension assessment was developed by ETS

scores, student et

ELL = English language lear duca Testing Ser ce; GR = Gr up o sses A n Di d Ev TOSCRF = st f o

*Significantly different from e .05 le s meas tatistic ificanc d on that ar adjusted for e-hyp testing
L.9 

TABLE L.4 

DIFFERENCES IN THE ETS SCIENCE POST WEEN SUBGROUPS, SECO T OF FIFTH GRAD

Pr SS Real 

 EFFECTS ON -TEST BET ND COHOR E

oject CRI ReadAbout Read for 

 Esti 

Sta d Sta d 

Esti 

Sta d 

mate

ndar

Error p-value Estimate

ndar

Error p-value mate

ndar

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm -4.15 4.23 0.94 0.69 3.54 1.00 -1.92 3.41 1.00 -1Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -4 06 93 0.72 -3 76 4.06 0.95 1.51 3.61 00 -1 

. 2. . 1. 

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. bottom) 

rd 

-8.56 3.65 0.16 -3.64 3.96 0.96 0.51 4.43 1.00 -4

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) -5.02 3.20 0.61 1.04 3.21 1.00 -1.59 4.34 1.00 -1Pretest TOSCRF sc(vs. m ddle) 

ore, top third 

i -3.48 2 00 . 0 48 . -3 94 . 2 21 . 0 45 . 2 05 . 2 61 . 0 98 . -1 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm 0.57 3.16` 1.00 0.56 3.55 1.00 0.21 3.98 1.00 1Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 0 57 . 3 16 . 1 00 . 0 56 . 3 55 . 1 00 . 0 21 . 3 98 . 1 00 . 1 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 2.79 4.18 0.99 2.64 4.28 1.00 0.68 5.42 1.00 3Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

-2.82 4.62 1.00 -0.04 4.05 1.00 -0.28 5.23 1.00 -0

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 5.67 2.22 0.10 0.25 2.03 1.00 1.09 2.77 1.00 2Classified as ELL 0.79 3.59 1.00 4.42 4.31 0.92 4.73 3.75 0.8 4

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample 

xperience ( 09 4.89 0.91 -1

Median Teaching 

E 11 Years) -0.49 4.10 1.00 -5.91 5.33 0.88 5.

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -3.21 5.95 1.00 1.13 7.19 1.00 7.51 8.96 0.97 2Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -5.58 5.18 0.88 0.17 5.69 1.00 -10.93 6.67 0.51 -2
Table L.4 (continued) 

L.10 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -3.76 4.39 0.97 -4.71 5.04 0.95 -15.09* 4.89 0.03 -7

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 3 29 . 4 35 . 0 98 . 3 49 . 5 10 . 0 99 . 1 17 . 5 26 . 1 00 . 3 In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) 2.42 4.23 1.00 -4.22 4.35 0.93 4.33 4.04 0.89 0In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

(15.5 percent) - 17 16 1.00 7.81 47 0.69 4.25 4.99 97 1

2. 4. 5. 0.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Practices 

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) 1.13 3.92 1.00 - 51 4.88 1.00 2.84 4.60 00 0

1. 1.

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -4.22 3.61 0.86 -0.85 4.24 1.00 -3.86 4.34 0.96 -3Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( -7.59 2 91 . 0 09 . -0 70 . 3 91 . 1 00 . -3.22 4 21 . 0 98 . -4SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests adminis by study 

e estimates pres whethe is a dif al imp n for the oup list examp r ELL st 

 determine whether the differ im v t 2 o ar e not) ied as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experi ger impacts of the inter entions than Cohort 2 students not classified as ELL? e p-values pfor multiple-hypotheses testing. The science reading comp bles in the regression model include prete

nd race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. 

ner; ETS = E tional vi ADE Reading sme aluation; Tes Silent Conte

 zero at the el. This ure of st al signif is base -values e multipl theses t . 

tered team.

NOTE: Th ented in this table reflect r there

pacts of the inter

ferenti act in the seco

between Cohor

d year

students wh

 subgr

e ( nd ar

ed. For

 classif

le, fo atu

one to ence in entions a 

ence lar v Th

rehension assessment was developed by ETS. Varia

student ethnicity a

ELL = English language lear duca Testing Ser ce; GR = Gr up o Asses nt and Diagnostic Ev TOSCRF = t f o

*Significantly different from .05 lev meas atistic icance d on p that ar adjusted for e-hypo esting
L.11 

TABLE L.5 

DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE FOLLOW-UP TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for Knowledge 

 Estimate 

ndard 

Error E te 

rd 

r Estima

Stand

Erro

-

value ate 

St pvalue 

Sta p- value s ma ti Standa Erro p- value t e ard r p Estim andard Error 

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm -0.15 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.66 -0.13 0.11 0.64 -0.08 0.06 0.60 Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -0.16 0.07 0.10 0. 0.06 0.83 -0. 0.05 99 01 0. 1.00 

05 02 0. 0. 05

Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.13* 05 03 0. 0. 0.07 0.04 0.16 -0.07 0.05 0.46 -0.04 0.04 0.8 

2 

Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.04 0.06 0.94 0.17* 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.37 0.10 0.06 0.30 Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi d (vs. m r iddle) -0.06 05 66 0. 0. 0. 00 0. 4 0 1. 0 0 -0. 06 0.9 04 0. 0.76 

04 0. -0. 03 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.05 0.06 0.81 -0.02 0.06 0.99 -0.06 0.05 0.68 -0.04 0.08 0.96 Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -0.05 06 81 -0 0. 0. . 2 0 0. 6 0 0. 9 9 -0. 05 0.70 04 0. 0.96 

06 0. -0. 08 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.02 4 98 0.0 0. 0.00 0.04 1.00 0.02 0.05 99 0. -0.01 0.05 1. 

00 

Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.06 0.05 0.58 -0.03 0.05 0.93 -0.10 0.04 0.07 -0.03 0.06 0.98 Pretest GRADE score, top 

third (vs. m ) 0.01 0.04 1.00 0.01 iddle 0.03 0.99 0.09 0.06 0.32 0.01 0.05 1.00 

Classified as ELL -0.15 0.08 0.24 -0.15 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.10 1.00 -0.15 0.09 0.36 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching Experien

Median 

ce (10 

Years) 0.10 0.06 0.44 0.05 0.05 0.82 0.05 0.09 0.98 0.04 0.06 0.97 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 0.07 0.04 0.34 -0.05 0.06 0.90 -0.06 0.11 0.96 -0.04 0.09 0.99 Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) 0.05 0.05 0.79 -0.06 0.06 0.74 0.12 0.06 0.26 0.01 0.06 1.00 
Table L.5 (continued) 

L.12 m sion t minister . e estimate nted i able refl et e is a di ial imp he year e subg ist exam r ELL 

deter whether e rv t 1 students who are (and ) ied as E is statistically 

, were in sixth grade. other ds, in ear, do Cohor L i ger sustained im acts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this ta e composite is based on the GRADE an

g comprehension tests. Each test score is conver by the standard deviation of the variabl

e is the simple average of the three z-scores. The social studies and science reading comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. V

etest DE F sc stud hnicity and race, st chool l n, teac ace, is uage learner ETS = Educational vi ADE = Group Reading Assessm nt and Diagnostic Ev TOSCRF = Test of Silent Conte

nt from at the . This m that are adjusted for ipl ypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: Reading co prehen ests ad ed by study team

NOTE: Th s prese

mine 

n this t

 the differ

ect wh

nce in im

her ther

pacts of the inte

fferent

entions be

act in t

tween Cohor

second for th roup l

 ar not

ed. For ple, fo

LL

 statu

one to the study

e

ence lar

classif 

 when they In wor the second y t 1 EL students exper p 

ble are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. Th

readin ted into a z-score by subtracting the mean and dividingcompositinclude pr GRA and TOSCR ores, ent et udent ELL status, s ocatio her r and d trict indicators. 

ELL = English lang*Significantly differe

; Testing Ser ce; GR e aluation; 

 zero 05 level. easure of statistical significance is based on p-values mult e-h

 Estimate 

pvalue 

Standard Error p- value Estimate Standard Error p- value Estimate Standard Error p- value Estimate Standard Error 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 0.09 0.08 0.70 0.03 0.08 0.99 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.08 1.00 In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (68 percent) -0.08 0.10 0.89 -0.06 0.09 0.93 -0.10 0.07 0.56 -0.15 0.11 0.57 In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs AboSample Median (12 percent) 

ve 

0.15 0.13 0.66 0.27 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.77 0.16 0.12 0.50 

Subgroups Defined by r Pra Teache ctices 

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.5) 0.10 0.05 0.29 0.10 0.04 0.07 -0.04 0.08 0.97 -0.14 0.06 0.07 Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -0.09 0.06 0.48 -0.15 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.99 0.02 0.07 0.99 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 0 12 . 0 06 . 0 22 . 0 14* . 0 05 . 0 03 . 0 09 . 0 07 . 0 66 . 0 05 . 0 07 . 0 93 . 
L.13 

TABLE L.6 

S EFFECTS ON FO W-UP TES U ROUPS,

Project CRISS Reading for Knowledge 

D NCE IFFERE IN THE GRADE LLO T B S ETWEEN BG FIRST COHORT

ReadAbout Read for Real 

Estimate 

Standard 

Error 

pvalue Estimate Standard Error p- value Estimate Standard Error p- value Estimate Standard Error p- value 

Subgroups Define Student ac and Achi ent d by Char teristics Prior evem

Pretes TOSCRF score, 

norm -2.66* 0.72 0.01 0.14 0.86 1.00 -1.56 0.92 0.63 -1.45 0.85 0.63 

t 

above national 

Pretest TOSCRF scoabove sample median 

re, 

-2.10 1.22 0.63 0.64 0.93 1.00 0.08 0.80 1.00 -0.33 0.83 1.00 

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thir ( s. bottom) -2.12* 0.60 0.01 91 0. 5 0.4 -0.33 0. 1. -0 6 0. 3 0. 1 

d v 0. 4 0 54 00 .6 5 9 

Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.37 0.92 1.00 1.55 0.84 0.52 0.78 0.56 0.83 0.79 0.77 0.97 Pretest TOSCRF score, top thir ( s. middle) -1.03 0.59 0.60 08 0. 7 1.0 -0.14 0. 1. -0 7 0. 4 1. 0 

d v 0. 5 0 42 00 .1 4 0 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.79 0.86 0.99 0.15 0.94 1.00 -0.36 0.93 1.00 -1.25 1.33 0.99 Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -1.03 0.87 0.93 .24 0. 9 1.0 -0.66 0. 1. -1 1 1. 3 0. 9 

-0 8 0 85 00 .1 3 9 

Pretest GRADE scthird (vs. bottom) 

ore, top 

-0.44 0.74 1.00 -0.28 0.63 1.00 0.48 0.84 1.00 -0.87 0.82 0.96 

Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.27 0.68 1.00 -0.13 0.88 1.00 -0.69 0.82 0.99 0.16 1.02 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 0.08 0.68 1.00 0.29 0.51 1.00 1.46 0.80 0.53 0.08 0.80 1.00 Classified as ELL -2.14 1.04 0.35 -2.12 1.22 0.58 1.05 2.14 1.00 -1.52 1.36 0.94 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching ExperYears) 

Median 

ience (10 

1.34 0.91 0.81 0.54 0.88 1.00 0.60 1.35 1.00 0.23 1.07 1.00 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 1.16 0.80 0.80 -0.52 0.96 1.00 -1.67 1.36 0.92 -0.84 1.13 1.00 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -0.20 1.23 1.00 -0.73 0.68 0.96 -2.02 1.15 0.59 -0.24 1.19 1.00 
Table L.6 (continued) 

L.14 ading comprehe tests a stered dy t e estimates pr in th re s a di ial im the nd year he sub lis r exam o 

determine the dif ence in v be d e (and e not) ied as s statis 

the study, when they were in sixth grade. In ther word , in the sec nd year, do Cohort 1 LL studen experienc larger su tained impacts of the interve

classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this table ar es in the regression model include pretes

thnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. ner; E = Gr eadin ssm v O = Test of Silent Contextual ng Fl zero at the .05 level. This me e of statistical significance is based on that are adjusted for multiple hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: Re nsion dmini by stu eam. 

NOTE: Th esented 

whether

is table 

er

flect whether

i

 there i

pacts of the inter

fferent

entions 

pact in

tween Cohor

 seco

u

 for t

ents who ar

group

 ar

ted. Fo ple, f

E L i

r ELL statu

ti

one to f m 

o

t 1 st

E

 classif

s

L cally 

s o ts e 

e adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. Variabl

student e

ELL = English language lear GRAD oup R g Asse ent and Diagnostic E aluation; T SCRF Readi uency. 

*Significantly different from asur p-values

 Estimat

p- p- p- pvalue 

e 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score 

(4.16) -0.32 1.00 -0.66 1.00 1.45 0.76 0. 0.80 0.88 0.94 19 0.92 1.00 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.17 1.22 0.98 0.80 0.94 0.99 0.25 0.88 1.00 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median (68 

percent) -1.35 1.20 0.92 -1.18 1.26 0.97 -1.94 1.29 0.71 -0.90 0.93 0.97 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 1.96 1.81 0.92 3.28 2.12 0.66 1.96 1.94 0.95 1.82 1.61 0.91 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale 

Score (499.5) 1.58 0.76 0.37 0.54 0.78 1.00 -1 39 1.14 0.93 -2 01 0.86 0.22 

. . 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -1.05 0.88 0.93 -1.06 0.98 0.96 0.72 1.20 1.00 -0.11 0.95 1.00 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 2 15* . 0 71 . 0 04 . 2 26* . 0 69 . 0 02 . 1 65 . 0 87 . 0 47 . 0 11 . 0 95 . 1 00 . 
L.15 

TABLE L.7 

DIFFERE FF S ON THE ETS STU ES FOLLOW-U TW N SUBGROUP

Pr SS Read eal ding f owledg 

NCES IN E ECT SOCIAL DI P TEST BE EE S, FIRST COHORT

oject CRI ReadAbout for R Rea or Kn e 

 Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r 

Standar

Erro

pvalue Standar Erro p- value Standar Erro p- p- value 

Standar value Erro

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm -3.18 3.43 0.99 3.56 3.15 0.95 4.01 5.13 1.00 -1.84 3.54 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -5.53 2.85 0.46 -0.90 2.63 1.00 -0.71 2.49 1.00 0.91 2.01 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -4.08 2.56 0.71 1.26 2.01 1.00 -1.75 2.23 1.00 -0.77 2.04 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.86 2.35 1.00 5.85 2.58 0.25 -0.78 1.75 1.00 -0.15 2.04 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third ( s. mi v ddle) -2 63 . 2 93 . 0 99 . -0 35 . 2 51 . 1 00 . 0 62 . 2 99 . 1 00 . -3 34 . 1 79 . 0 50 . Pretest GRADE score, above 

national norm 1.40 2.47 1.00 -1.76 2.67 1.00 -0.29 2.99 1.00 -0.92 2.74 1.00 

Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 0.82 2.49 1.00 -2.26 2.63 0.99 -0.46 2.93 1.00 -0.60 2.79 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 1.37 1.90 1.00 1.20 2.05 1.00 3.16 2.53 0.91 2.56 2.37 0.96 Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -1.64 2.56 1.00 -2.85 2.10 0.85 -1.04 2.19 1.00 -3.75 3.38 0.95 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. m e) 0.01 2.15 1.00 0.83 iddl 1.98 1.00 1.48 2.94 1.00 3.09 2.22 0.84 Classified as ELL -4.51 3.55 0.88 -1.58 4.47 1.00 -13.26 6.13 0.29 -1.96 3.88 1.00 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching Experien

0.99 

Median 

ce (10 

Years) 5.49 2.87 0.48 2.32 1.76 0.89 2.62 3.59 1.00 2.60 2.77 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 3.02 3.03 0.98 1.11 2.16 1.00 -1.63 4.32 1.00 0.75 3.62 1.00 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) 1.86 2.87 1.00 0.35 2.17 1.00 -2.38 2.71 0.99 2.28 3.33 1.00 
Table L.7 (continued) 

L.16 eading compreh tests istere udy e estimates pr in th re is a d tial im n nd yea he su lis r exam or EL 

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as E is statistically 

, when they were in sixth grade. I other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stud nts experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The social studies reading compre les in the regression model include prete

ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. ner; E Testi vice DE = Read ses and D tic Ev n; Silen e

zero at the .05 level. This me e of statistical significance is based on that are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R ension admin d by st team. 

NOTE: Th esented

whether

is table

 the differ

flect whether there 

pacts of the inte

ifferen

entions be

pact i

tween Cohor

the seco r for t bgroup ted. Fo ple, f

L

L statu 

one to the study

 ar classif L 

n e 

hension assessment was developed by ETS. Variab

student

ELL = English language lear ETS = ducational ng Ser ; GRA Group ing As sment iagnos aluatio TOSCRF = Test of t Cont 

*Significantly different from asur p-values

 Esti

p- p- p- p

mate 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score 

(4.16) 4.13 0.41 -1.25 1.00 1.86 1.00 - 2.06 2.79 3.17 0.59 3.08 1.00 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 5.27 2.81 0.47 -1.28 1.92 1.00 0.63 2.80 1.00 -1.15 3.36 1.00 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

-

 ReducedAbove Sample Median (68 

percent) -3.24 3.81 0.99 -1.46 3.52 1.00 -5.76 3.46 0.60 10.21 4.57 0.24 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 2.01 5.12 1.00 10.33 4.09 0.13 0.24 4.75 1.00 9.14 5.21 0.51 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.5) 4.02 2.81 0.83 3.30 1.50 0.29 -0 04 3.30 1.00 -9 01* 2.96 0.04 

. .

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -3.88 2.71 0.81 -5.36 2.05 0.11 -2.88 3.64 1.00 4.52 2.95 0.74 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 1 38 . 2 99 . 1 00 . 0 18 . 2 12 . 1 00 . -0.45 3 85 . 1 00 . 4.02 3.32 0.92 
L.17 

TABLE L.8 

DIFF IN ECTS ON THE NC OLLOW-UP TE EE UBGROUPS, FI ORT

Pr SS Read eal ding fo owledg 

ERENCES EFF ETS SCIE E F ST BETW N S RST COH

oject CRI ReadAbout for R Rea r Kn e 

 Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r Estimate 

d 

r 

Standar

Erro

pvalue Standar Erro p- value Standar Erro p- value Standar Erro p- value 

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm -3.53 3.71 0.98 3.82 2.77 0.85 -7.72 3.24 0.19 -0.12 2.79 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -6.12 2.68 0.25 3.94 2.73 0.82 -2.41 2.71 0.99 0.85 2.70 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -2.29 1.78 0.89 2.85 1.86 0.75 -3.95 1.46 0.09 0.03 2.07 1.00 Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -2.50 2.65 0.99 6.39 3.40 0.49 5.53 2.73 0.39 8.88 4.24 0.35 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third ( s. mi v ddle) - 24 3. 0. 00 1 00 . -0.58 2.40 1 00 . - 08 1. 2. 91 0.96 0 80 . 2 25 . 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -1.67 2.93 1.00 1.56 2.38 1.00 -1.46 3.91 1.00 2.71 3.68 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -1.60 2.76 1.00 0.77 2.29 1.00 -2.24 3.77 1.00 2.35 3.55 1. 

00 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -1.26 2.51 1.00 2.24 2.18 0.97 -1.90 2.18 0.99 2.07 2.55 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -3.93 2.56 0.74 -0.18 3.42 1.00 -5.73 2.58 0.27 -0.39 2.56 1.00 Pretest GRADE score, top 

third (vs. m ) -0.52 2.55 1.00 0.60 iddle 2.46 1.00 2.21 2.04 0.96 -0.97 2.83 1.00 

Classified as ELL -4.72 4.19 0.94 -4.82 3.09 0.70 6.35 4.14 0.72 -9.28 5.21 0.54 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching Experien

Median 

ce (10 

Years) 1.32 2.67 1.00 0.90 2.71 1.00 -0.26 4.23 1.00 1.29 3.36 1.00 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 0.83 2.55 1.00 -3.04 3.36 0.99 1.48 4.96 1.00 -3.73 5.02 1.00 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) 2.89 3.36 0.99 1.59 2.42 1.00 0.29 3.24 1.00 0.89 3.99 1.00 
Table L.8 (continued) 

L.18 eading compre tests nistere tudy e estimates pr in th e refl eth is a d ntial i n th nd ye the su li r exa or EL u

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as E is statistically 

, when they were in sixth grade. I other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stud nts experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this t The science reading comprehension asse

es in the regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher r

ner; E Testi vice DE = Rea sse and D tic E on; Silen e

zero at the .05 level. This me e of statistical significance is based on that are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R hension admi d by s team.

NOTE: Th esented

whether

is tabl

 the differ

ect wh er there

pacts of the inte

iffere

entions be

mpact i

tween Cohor

e seco ar for bgroup sted. Fo mple, f

L

L stat 

one to the study

 ar classif L 

n e 

able are adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 

Variabl

ELL = English language lear ETS = ducational ng Ser ; GRA Group ding A ssment iagnos valuati TOSCRF = Test of t Cont 

*Significantly different from asur p-values

 Esti

p- p- p- -

mate 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error p value 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) 4.42 0.40 -1.70 1.00 3.56 0.88 1. 2.19 2.52 2.67 50 3.39 1.00 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 3.54 3.26 0.95 0.67 3.91 1.00 0.18 2.99 1.00 2.55 4.49 1.00 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median (68 

percent) -0.98 3.57 1.00 -1.16 3.01 1.00 2.45 3.65 1.00 -4.49 6.64 1.00 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 5.82 4.20 77 71 3.28 18 56 3.65 1.00 1.38 4.52 1.00 

0. 7. 0. 1. 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale 

Score (499.5) 3.58 2.39 78 34 2.17 16 21 4.41 1.00 0.24 2.82 1.00 

0. 5. 0. 1. 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -2.22 2.64 0.99 -6.30 2.35 0.10 1.50 2.79 1.00 0.47 3.68 1.00 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 3 24 . 3 41 . 0 98 . 5 62 . 2 24 . 0 14 . 1 53 . 2 79 . 1 00 . 0 67 . 3 46 . 1 00 . 
L.19 

TABLE L.9 

DIFFERE CT N THE COMP T-T T BETWEEN S, ND DE

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

NCE E S IN EFF S O O S SITE PO ES SU P BGROU SECO COHORT H G OF FIFT RA

 Estimate 

Standar

Error Estimate 

d 

Error p-value Estimat 

d 

r p-value Estim

d

p-value 

Standar

e

Standar

Erro

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovnational norm 

e 

0.04 09 0. 0.70 0.03 0.08 65 -0. 0. 05 0.08 0.57 0

0. 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovsample median 

e 

-0.08 0.06 0.16 -0.06 0.06 0.29 0.00 0.06 1.00 -0.0

Pretest TOSCRF score, top t(vs. botto

hird 

m) -0. 0.08 12 0.14 -0.04 0.07 57 03 0. 0. 0.08 0.68 -0.0

Pretest TOSCRF score, midthird (vs. bottom) 

dle 

-0.09 0.06 0.12 -0.03 0.05 0.60 -0.08 0.08 0.31 -0.0

Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. m ddle) i 0.00 0.05 0. 01 0.04 79 0.12* 05 02 0.0

93 0. 0. 0. 0.

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.03 0.05 0.59 0.02 0.06 0.78 0.01 0.06 0.88 0.0Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -0. 0.05 0. 02 0.06 78 0.01 0. 6 88 0.0

03 59 0. 0. 0 0.

Pretest GRADE score, top th(vs. bottom) 

ird 

0.07 08 0. 0.40 0.05 0.09 0.60 02 0. 0.07 0.81 0

0. 

Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

-0.05 0.08 0.58 0.02 0.06 0.68 0.03 0.07 0.70 0.0

Pretest GRADE score, top third 

(vs. middle) 0.12* 0.05 0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.61 0.01 0.06 0.91 0.0

Classified as ELL 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.33 0.46* 0.13 0.00 0.1

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample 

xperience (11 Years) 0.03 0.10 0.74 -0.17 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.08 -0.0

Median Teaching 

E

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -0.16 0.10 0.14 -0.08 0.12 0.50 0.02 0.11 0.83 -0.0Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -0.22 0.11 0.05 -0.01 0.11 0.92 -0.22 0.10 0.04 -0.1
Table L.9 (continued) 

L.20 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -0.13 0.08 0.11 -0.13 0.10 0.22 -0.13 0.08 0.10 -0.1

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 09 -0. 0 11 . 0 40 . -0 12 . 0 13 . 0 35 . -0.03 0 10 . 0 74 . -0.0In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) -0.05 0.12 0.65 -0.08 0.08 0.28 0.11 0.12 0.34 -0.0In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 percent) 0.01 0.09 0.95 0.15 08 0.08 0.19 0.11 11 0.0

0. 0.

Subgroups Defi d by Teacher Practices ne

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) 0.03 0.07 0.64 - 13 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.08 19 - 0

0. 0. 0. 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -0.10 0.08 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.87 -0.03 0.09 0.77 -0.0Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( -0.07 0 07 . 0 34 . -0 01 . 0 08 . 0 91 . -0.10 0 11 . 0 36 . -0.0SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests admin by . 

e estimates present his tabl t wheth e is a d ntial imp the sec ar for th oup lis or exam r ELL s 

 determine whether the differ im v t 2 o ar nd are not) ssified as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experience larger impacts of the interventions than Cohort 2 stude as ELL? The p-valu

adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. The composite science reading comprehension tests. Ea

cting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The composite is the simple a

 scie ading c hension ments velope TS. Var in the re on m E a 

 teacher indicators. 

ner; ETS ational g Servi ADE = Readin essment iagnost uation; RF = T ilent C 

o at the .05 level. Th measure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are not ed for multiple

istered study team

NOTE: Th ed in t e reflec

ence in

er ther

pacts of the inter

iffere

entions

act in ond ye

students wh

e subgr

a

ted. F

cla

ple, fo tatu

one to between Cohor e ( 

nts not classified 

is based on the GRADE and the social studies and

z-score by subtrasocial studies and nce reand race, student ELL status, school location,

ompre assess

ra

were de

ce, and district 

d by E iables gressi odel include pretest GRAD nd T

ELL = English language lear = Educ Testin ce; GR Group g Ass and D ic Eval TOSC est of S onte

*Significantly different from zer is adjust -hypotheses testing.
L.21 

TABLE L.10 

DIFFERENCES ON THE GRADE POST-T EN SUBGROUPS, SECO FIFTH GRADERS

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 IN EFFECTS EST BETWE ND COHORT OF 

Estimate 

d 

e 

d 

e 

Standar d 

Error p-value Estimat

Standar

Error p-value Estimat

Standar

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm 0.37 1.36 0.79 0.69 1.24 0.58 -0.30 1.32 0.82 0.Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median - .15 88 0.20 - .71 0.87 0.42 - .40 00 69 -0 

1 0. 0 0 1. 0. . 

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. bottom) 

rd 

-1.52 1.22 0.22 -0.93 1.17 0.43 -0.68 1.28 0.60 -0.

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) -1.65 1.11 0.14 -1.50 0.89 0.10 -2.49 1.58 0.12 -1.7Pretest TOSCRF sc(vs. m ddle) 

ore, top third 

i 0.08 0.86 0.93 0.55 0.71 0.44 1.70 0.96 0 08 . 0 

. 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.97 0.72 0.18 0.76 0.82 0.36 -1.12 0.84 0.19 0.Pretest GRADE score, above sample median - . 0 97 0.72 0.18 0.76 0.82 0.36 - . 1 12 0.84 0 19 . 0 0

. 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.28 1.01 0.79 0.86 1.09 0.43 -1.22 1.02 0.24 0.3Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

-1.38 1.10 0.22 0.24 0.91 0.80 -0.60 1.23 0.63 -0.2

Pretest GRADE score, top third 

(vs. middle) 0.82 0.69 0.24 -0.27 0.71 0.70 -0.09 1.06 0.93 0.2

Classified as ELL 2.97* 1.07 0.01 0.40 1.30 0.76 6.55* 2.52 0.01 1.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Experience (11 

Median Teaching 

Years) 1.33 1.21 0.28 -1.39 1.49 0.35 1.99 1.14 0.09 0.4

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -0.74 1.37 0.59 -1.03 1.48 0.49 -0.85 1.33 0.52 -0.Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -2.26 1.53 0.15 -0.06 1.77 0.97 -2.71 1.57 0.09 -1.0
Table L.10 (continued) 

L.22 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -0.81 1.07 0.45 -1.43 1.55 0.36 -0.69 1.03 0.50 -1.2

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 09 -1. 1 62 . 0 50 . -1 86 . 2 11 . 0 38 . 0 06 . 1 54 . 0 97 . -0.In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) -0.92 1.47 0.54 -1.45 1.17 0.22 0.54 1.82 0.77 -0.In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 percent) 0.92 1.14 0.43 2.57* 20 0.04 3.51* 51 03 1.

1. 1. 0.

Subgroups Defi d by Teacher Practices ne

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) 1.77 0.89 0.05 - 56 1.26 0.22 2.37* 05 03 0.7

1. 1. 0.

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -1.44 1.14 0.21 0.34 0.96 0.72 0.19 1.19 0.87 -0.7Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( -0.51 1 10 . 0 65 . 0 75 . 1 27 . 0 56 . -0.14 1 27 . 0 91 . -0.2SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests admini by . 

e estimates present s table t wheth e is a di ial impact in the seco r for th oup lis r exam ELL s 

 determine whether fer im v t 2 o ar e not) ied as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experience larger impacts of the interventions than Cohort 2 students not classified as ELL? The p-valu

adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. Variables in the RF scores, student ethnicity and race, stu

district indicators. 

ner; GRA v OSCRF Reading Fluency

 zero at th vel. Th sure of cal sig e is bas p-values re not for mu -hyp

stered study team

NOTE: Th ed in thi

 the dif

 reflec

ence in

er ther

pacts of the inter

fferent

entions

nd yea

students wh

e subgr

e and ar

ted. Fo

 classif

ple, for tatu

one to between Cohor ( 

regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSC

teacher race, and 

ELL = English language lear D = Gr E oup Reading Assessm nt a e nd Diagnostic E aluation; T = Test of Silent Contextual . 

*Significantly different from e .05 le is mea statisti nificanc ed on that a adjusted ltiple otheses testing. 
L.23 

TABLE L.11 

DIFFERENCES IN EFF ETS SOCIAL STUDIES P ETWEEN SUBGROUPS, RT OF FIFTH 

Pr SS Real 

ECTS ON THE OST-TEST B SECOND COHO GR

oject CRI ReadAbout Read for 

 Esti e 

St d 

e 

St d 

e 

St d 

mat

andar

Error p-value Estimat

andar

Error p-value Estimat

andar

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm 1.45 2.68 0.59 -2.23 3.68 0.55 -0.62 2.91 0.83 -0.Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -0 22 2.76 0.94 -0 47 2.57 0.86 2.57 2.88 38 0.

. . 0.

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. bottom) 

rd 

0.86 3.27 0.79 2.70 3.06 0.38 7.6* 3.54 0.04 2.

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) 1.24 3.79 0.74 3.95 2.79 0.16 6.08 3.32 0.07 3.Pretest TOSCRF sc(vs. m ddle) 

ore, top third 

i 3 11 . 3 14 . 0 33 . 2 76 . 2 37 . 0 25 . 3 08 . 2 20 . 0 17 . 2 

. 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm 3.29 3.23 0.31 -0.98 2.92 0.74 4.09 3.19 0.21 1.Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 3 29 . 3 23 . 0 31 . -0 98 . 2 92 . 0 74 . 4 09 . 3 19 . 0 21 . 1 

. 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 8.64 4.29 0.05 0.40 4.34 0.93 3.82 4.92 0.44 4.Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

0.01 4.78 1.00 0.14 3.81 0.97 1.77 4.83 0.72 0.

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 6.67 3.47 0.06 -1.05 2.16 0.63 0.90 3.08 0.77 1.Classified as ELL 4.07 5.20 0.44 1.45 5.36 0.79 12.87* 5.62 0.03 3.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample 

xperience ( 79 0.77 -4.79 3.46 0.17 1.82 4.40 0.68 -0.

Median Teaching 

E 11 Years) 1.40 4.More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -6.62 4.18 0.12 -1.88 4.66 0.69 -5.10 4.08 0.22 -4.Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -4.19 5.06 0.41 0.94 3.45 0.79 -2.64 4.70 0.58 -0.
Table L.11 (continued) 

L.24 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -5.08 4.33 0.25 -4.44 3.46 0.20 0.28 4.54 0.95 -5.

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 43 -6. 4 70 . 0 18 . - 12 09* . 4 13 . 0 01 . - 10 28* . 4 52 . 0 03 . -8 

. 

In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) -3.07 5.26 0.56 -0.24 3.19 0.94 2.32 4.26 0.59 -0.In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median (15.5 percent) 1.40 4.03 0.73 1.76 24 0.59 0.68 4.56 88 1.

3. 0.

Subgroups Defi d by Teacher Practices ne

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale 

Score (499.7) - 23 03 0.76 - 60 3.49 0.12 4.24 4.49 35 - 

1. 4. 5. 0. 0. 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -0.31 4.30 0.94 0.07 3.42 0.98 -2.00 4.40 0.65 -1.Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( 1 24 . 2 98 . 0 68 . -1 62 . 3 57 . 0 65 . -1.67 4 55 . 0 72 . 0 

. 

SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests admini by . 

e estimates presente is table t wheth e is a di ial impact in the seco r for t oup list r examp ELL st 

 determine whet the differ im v t 2 o ar e not) ied as ELL is statistica

rience larger impacts of the interventions than Cohort nts not classified as ELL? The p-valu

adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. The social studi d by ETS. Variables in the regression m

student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. 

ner; ETS = ducational vi ADE oup Reading Assessment agnosti aluation; Silent Conte

 zero at th vel. Th sure of cal sign e is bas p-values re not a for mu hyp

stered study team

NOTE: Th d in th

h r

 reflec

ence in

er ther

pacts of the inter

fferent

entions

nd yea

students wh

he subgr

e and ar

ed. Fo

 classif

le, for atu

one to e 

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students expe

between Cohor (

2 stude

es reading comprehension assessment was develope

TOSCRF scores, 

ELL = English language lear E Testing Ser ce; GR = Gr an Di d c vE TOSCRF = Test of

*Significantly different from e .05 le is mea statisti ificanc ed on that a djusted ltiple- otheses testing. 
L.25 

TABLE L.12 

DIFFERENCES IN THE ETS SCIENCE POST WEEN SUBGROUPS, SECO T OF FIFTH GRAD

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 EFFECTS ON -TEST BET ND COHOR E

 Esti e 

St d St d St d 

mat

andar

Error p-value Estimate

andar

Error p-value Estimate

andar

Error p-value Estim

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, abovenational norm -4.15 4.23 0.33 0.69 3.54 0.85 -1.92 3.41 0.58 -1.7

`

Pretest TOSCRF score, above 

sample median -4 06 2.93 0.17 -3 76 4.06 0.36 1.51 3.61 0.68 -1.9

. .

Pretest TOSCRF score, top thi(vs. bottom) 

rd 

-8.56* 3.65 0.02 -3.64 3.96 0.36 0.51 4.43 0.91 -4.0

Pretest TOSCRF score, middlethird (vs. bottom) -5.02 3.20 0.12 1.04 3.21 0.75 -1.59 4.34 0.72 -1.4Pretest TOSCRF sc(vs. m ddle) 

ore, top third 

i -3.48 0. 2.00 09 -3.94 2. 0. 2. 2. 21 08 05 61 0. 3 4 -1. 

8 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm 0.57 3.16 0.86 0.56 3.55 0.88 0.21 3.98 0.96 1.7Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 0.57 3. 0. 0. 16 86 56 3. 55 0. 0. 3. 88 21 98 0. 69 1. 

7

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 2.79 4.18 0.51 2.64 4.28 0.54 0.68 5.42 0.90 3.5Pretest GRADE score, mthird (vs. bottom) 

iddle 

-2.82 4.62 0.54 -0.04 4.05 0.99 -0.28 5.23 0.96 -0.6

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 5.67* 2.22 0.01 0.25 2.03 0.90 1.09 2.77 0.70 2.7Classified as ELL 0.79 3.59 0.83 4.42 4.31 0.31 4.73 3.75 0.21 4.0

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample 

xperience ( 89 0.30 -1.4

Median Teaching 

E 11 Years) -0.49 4.10 0.91 -5.91 5.33 0.27 5.09 4.

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience -3.21 5.95 0.59 1.13 7.19 0.88 7.51 8.96 0.41 2.0Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -5.58 5.18 0.29 0.17 5.69 0.98 -10.93 6.67 0.11 -2.7
Table L.12 (continued) 

L.26 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real 

 Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estimate Error p-value Estim

Standard Standard Standard 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -3.76 4.39 0.40 -4.71 5.04 0.35 -15.09* 4.89 0.00 -7.0

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics 

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.68) 3 29 . 4 35 . 0 45 . 3 49 . 5 10 . 0.50 1 17 . 5 26 . 0 83 . 3 4

. 

In Schools with Proportion of Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Above Sample Median (69 percent) 2.42 4.23 0.57 -4.22 4.35 0.34 4.33 4.04 0.29 0.6In Schools with Proportion of Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

(15.5 percent) - 17 16 0.61 7.81 47 0.16 4.25 4.99 40 1.7

2. 4. 5. 0.

Subgroups Defi d by Teacher Practices ne

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.7) 1.13 3.92 0.77 - 51 4.88 0.76 2.84 4.60 54 0.8

1. 0.

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.4) -4.22 3.61 0.25 -0.85 4.24 0.84 -3.86 4.34 0.38 -3.5Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score 499.9) ( -7 59* . 2 91 . 0 01 . -0 70 . 3 91 . 0 86 . -3.22 4 21 . 0 45 . -4.1SOURCE: Reading comprehension tests admin by . 

e estimates present his table t wheth e is a d tial imp the seco r for oup lis r exam r ELL s 

 determine whether the differ im v t 2 o ar nd are not) sified as ELL is statistica

the second year, do Cohort 2 ELL students experience larger impacts of the interventions than Cohort 2 students not classified as ELL? The p-valu

adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. The composite i cience reading comprehension tests. Each 

ing the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variable for students in the sample. The composite is the simple average o

TS. V in the sion m clude pr GRAD TO es, 

status, school location, teacher race, a strict in rs. 

ner; ETS ational vic ADE = Readin ssment iagnosti uation; RF = T ilent Conte

o at the .05 level. This easure of statistical significance is based on p-values that are not d for mu -hypotheses testing. 

istered study team

NOTE: Th ed in t reflec

ence in

er ther

pacts of the inter

ifferen

entions

act in nd yea

students wh

 the subgr

e (a

ted. Fo

 las

ple, fo tatu

one to between Cohor c 

s based on the GRADE and the social studies and s

score by subtractreading comprehension assessment was develope

d di

d by E

di ato

ariables regres odel in etest E and SCRF scor student 

n c

ELL = English language lear = Educ Testing Ser e; GR Group g Asse and D c Eval TOSC est of S

*Significantly different from zer m adjuste ltiple
L.27 

TABLE L.13 

DIFFERENCES IN EFFECTS ON THE COMPOSITE FOLLOW-UP TEST BETWEEN SUBGROUPS, FIRST COHORT

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read for Real Reading for Knowledge 

Estim

Standard 

Error 

palue ate Standard p- va Estima Standard Error p- e te Standard p- val 

ate v Estim Error lue te valu Estima Error ue 

Subg oups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior chievement r A

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm -0.15* 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.24 -0.13 0.11 0.23 -0.08 0.06 0.21 Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -0.16* 0.07 0.03 05 0. 6 0.37 -0. 0.05 68 01 0. 0.88 

0. 0 02 0. 0. 05

Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.13* 0.05 0.01 0.07* 0.04 0.04 -0.07 0.05 0.15 -0.04 0.04 0.36 Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.04 0.06 0.52 0.17* 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.09 Pretest TOSCRF score, tthird (vs. middl

op 

e) -0. 05 24 06 0. 0. 0.00 0.04 0. -0. 06 45 0 0.3 

98 04 0. 0. -0.04 .03 1 

Pretest GRADE score, above national norm -0.05 0.06 0.36 -0.02 0.06 0.70 -0.06 0.05 0.27 -0.04 0.08 0.58 Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -0. 06 36 05 0. 0. -0.02 0.06 0. -0. 05 28 0 0.5 

70 06 0. 0. -0.04 .08 8 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.02 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.04 0.96 0.02 0.05 0.69 -0.01 0.05 0.84 Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.06 0.05 0.22 -0.03 0.05 0.51 -0.10 0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.06 0.66 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. middle) 0.01 0.04 0.80 0.01 0.03 0.72 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.83 Classified L -0.15 0.08 0.07 -0. as EL 15 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.90 -0.15 0.09 0.11 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching ExperiYears) 

Median 

ence (10 

0.10 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.35 0.05 0.09 0.61 0.04 0.06 0.58 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 0.07 0.04 0.10 -0.05 0.06 0.45 -0.06 0.11 0.56 -0.04 0.09 0.70 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) 0.03 0.09 0.76 -0.01 0.04 0.88 -0.12 0.08 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.96 
Table L.13 (continued) 

L.28 eading compre n test nister tud e estimates pr d in t e refl eth is a ntial i in t nd ye the su p li r exa for EL u

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as 

, when they were in sixth grade. In other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stu ents experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this tabl he composite is based on the GRADE a

comprehension tests. Each test score is converted into a z-score by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of the variabl

e is the simple average of the three z-scores. The social studies and science reading comprehension assessments were developed by ETS. V

retest G F sc tude nicity ce, stu LL ner; E S = E Testing Service; GRADE = Group Reading Assess e valuation; TOSCRF = f Silent onte

different from zero 05 level. his me that adjuste m -hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R hensio s admi ed by s y team.

NOTE: Th esente

whether

his tabl

 the differ

ect wh er there differe

entions be

mpact 

tween Cohor

he seco ar for bgrou

ar

sted. Fo

 classif

mple,

 LL

L stat

 is statistically

one to the study

pacts of the inte E

d

e are not adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. T

readingcompositinclude p RADE and TOSCR ores, s nt eth and ra dent E status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. 

ELL = English language lear T ducational m nt and Diagnostic E Test o C*Significantly at the . T asure of statistical significance is based on p-values are not d for ultiple

 Estim

p- p- p- pvalue 

ate 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score 

(4.16) 0.05 0.33 -0.06 0.29 0.12 0.07 0. 0.05 0.06 0.06 01 0.06 0.86 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 0.09 0.08 0.26 0.03 0.08 0.70 0.01 0.07 0.84 0.02 0.08 0.78 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median (68 

percent) -0.08 0.10 0.43 -0.06 0.09 0.49 -0.10 0.07 0.19 -0.15 0.11 0.19 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 0.15 0.13 24 27 0.13 05 11 0.11 32 0.16 0.12 0.17 

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.5) 0.10 0.05 08 10* 0.04 0.02 -0 04 0.08 0.58 -0 14* 0.06 0.02 

0. 0. . . 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -0.09 0.06 0.15 -0.15* 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.73 0.02 0.07 0.73 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 0 12 . 0 06 . 0 06 . 0 14* . 0 05 . 0 01 . 0 09 . 0 07 . 0 24 . 0 05 . 0 07 . 0 49 . 
L.29 

TABLE L.14 

DI ES EFFECTS ON T E F LOW-UP TEST N S GROUPS, FIRS T

Pr SS Read Real ading f owled 

FFERENC IN HE GRAD OL BETWEE UB T COHOR

oject CRI ReadAbout for Re or Kn ge 

 Estimate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

r 

Standar p- Standar p- Standar p- Standar p- 

value Esti value Esti value Esti Erro value 

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm - 2.66* 0.72 0.00 0.14 0.86 0.87 -1.56 0.92 0.09 -1.45 0.85 0.09 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -2.10 1.22 0.09 0.64 0.93 0.49 0.08 0.80 0.92 -0.33 0.83 0.69 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -2.12* 0.60 0.00 0.91 0.45 0.05 -0.33 0.54 0.55 -0.66 0.53 0.22 Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.37 0.92 0.69 1.55 0.84 0.07 0.78 0.56 0.17 0.79 0.77 0.30 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third ( s. mi v ddle) -1 03 . 0 59 . 0 09 . 0 08 . 0 57 . 0 89 . -0 14 . 0 42 . 0 74 . -0 17 . 0 44 . 0 70 . Pretest GRADE score, above 

national norm -0.79 0.86 0.36 0.15 0.94 0.88 -0.36 0.93 0.70 -1.25 1.33 0.35 

Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -1.03 0.87 0.24 -0.24 0.89 0.78 -0.66 0.85 0.44 -1.11 1.33 0.41 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) -0.44 0.74 0.56 -0.28 0.63 0.66 0.48 0.84 0.57 -0.87 0.82 0.29 Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.27 0.68 0.69 -0.13 0.88 0.88 -0.69 0.82 0.41 0.16 1.02 0.88 Pretest GRADE score, top 

third (vs. m ) 0.08 0.68 0.91 0.29 iddle 0.51 0.57 1.46 0.80 0.07 0.08 0.80 0.92 

Classified as ELL -2.14 1.04 0.04 -2.12 1.22 0.09 1.05 2.14 0.63 -1.52 1.36 0.27 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching ExperYears) 

Median 

ience (10 

1.34 0.91 0.15 0.54 0.88 0.54 0.60 1.35 0.66 0.23 1.07 0.83 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 1.16 0.80 0.15 -0.52 0.96 0.59 -1.67 1.36 0.22 -0.84 1.13 0.46 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) -0.20 1.23 0.87 -0.73 0.68 0.29 -2.02 1.15 0.09 -0.24 1.19 0.84 
Table L.14 (continued) 

L.30 eading compre n tests nistere tudy e estimates pr d in th e refl eth is a d ntial i n th nd ye the su li r exa or EL u

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as is statistically 

, when they were in sixth grade. In other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stu ents experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this tab Variables in the regression model includ

student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher race, and district indicators. ner; E = Gr eadin ssm v O = Test of Silent Contextual ng Fl zero at the .05 level. This me e of statistical significance is based on that are not adjuste for mu -hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R hensio admi d by s team.

NOTE: Th esente

whether

is tabl

 the differ

ect wh er there iffere

entions be

mpact i

tween Cohor

e seco ar for bgroup

ar

sted. Fo

 classif

mple, f

LL

L stat 

one to the study

pacts of the inte E

d

le are not adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing.

scores, 

ELL = English language lear GRAD oup R g Asse ent and Diagnostic E aluation; T SCRF Readi uency.

*Significantly different from asur p-values d ltiple

 Estimate

p- p- p- pvalue 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) -0.32 0.69 -0.66 0.45 1.45 0.13 0.80 0.88 0.94 0.19 0.92 0.84 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional 

Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 0.85 1.00 0.40 1.17 1.22 0.34 0.80* 0.94 0.40 0.25 0.88 0.78 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median (68 

percent) -1.35 1.20 0.27 -1.18 1.26 0.35 -1.94 1.29 0.14 -0.90 0.93 0.34 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 1.96 1.81 29 28 2.12 13 96 1.94 32 82 1.61 26 

0. 3. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale 

Score (499.5) 1.58* 76 04 54 78 0.49 -1 39 14 0.23 -2 01* 86 0.02 

0. 0. 0. 0. . 1. . 0. 

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -1.05 0.88 0.24 -1.06 0.98 0.28 0.72 1.20 0.55 -0.11 0.95 0.91 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 2.15* 0 71 . 0.00 2 26* . 0 69 . 0.00 1 65 . 0 87 . 0 06 . 0 11 . 0 95 . 0 91 . 
L.31 

TABLE L.15 

DIFFERE FF S ON THE ETS STU ES FOLLOW-U ETW N SUBGROUP

Pr SS Read eal ding f owledg 

NCES IN E ECT SOCIAL DI P TEST B EE S, FIRST COHORT

oject CRI ReadAbout for R Rea or Kn e 

 Estimate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

r 

Standar pvalue Esti Standar p- value Esti Standar p- value Esti Standar Erro p- value 

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm -3.18 3.43 0.36 3.56 3.15 0.26 4.01 5.13 0.44 -1.84 3.54 0.61 Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -5.53 2.85 0.06 -0.90 2.63 0.73 -0.71 2.49 0.78 0.91 2.01 0.65 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third (vs. bottom) -4.08 2.56 0.12 1.26 2.01 0.53 -1.75 2.23 0.43 -0.77 2.04 0.71 Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -0.86 2.35 0.72 5.85* 2.58 0.03 -0.78 1.75 0.66 -0.15 2.04 0.94 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third ( s. mi v ddle) 63 2. - . 2 93 0.37 - . 0 35 2.51 0.89 0.62 2.99 0.84 - .34 3 1.79 0.07 Pretest GRADE score, above national norm 1.40 2.47 0.57 -1.76 2.67 0.51 -0.29 2.99 0.92 -0.92 2.74 0.74 Pretest GRADE score, above sample median 0.82 2.49 0.74 -2.26 2.63 0.39 -0.46 2.93 0.87 -0.60 2.79 0.83 Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) 1.37 1.90 0.47 1.20 2.05 0.56 3.16 2.53 0.22 2.56 2.37 0.28 Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -1.64 2.56 0.52 -2.85 2.10 0.18 -1.04 2.19 0.64 -3.75 3.38 0.27 Pretest GRADE score, top 

third (vs. m ) 0.01 2.15 1.00 0.83 iddle 1.98 0.68 1.48 2.94 0.62 3.09 2.22 0.17 

Classified as ELL -4.51 3.55 0.21 -1.58 4.47 0.72 -13.26* 6.13 0.03 -1.96 3.88 0.62 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching Experien

0.35 

Median 

ce (10 

Years) 5.49 2.87 0.06 2.32 1.76 0.19 2.62 3.59 0.47 2.60 2.77 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 3.02 3.03 0.32 1.11 2.16 0.61 -1.63 4.32 0.71 0.75 3.62 0.84 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) 1.86 2.87 0.52 0.35 2.17 0.87 -2.38 2.71 0.38 2.28 3.33 0.50 
Table L.15 (continued) 

L.32 eading compreh tests istere udy e estimates pr in th re is a d ntial im n d ye he su lis r exa or EL 

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as is statistically 

, when they were in sixth grade. In other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stu ents experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this tab The social studies reading comprehensi

ariables in the regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, tea

ner; E Educa Testin ice; DE = Read sess nd D tic Ev n; Silen e

zero at the .05 level. This measure of statistical significance is based on that are not adjuste for mu -hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R ension admin d by st team. 

NOTE: Th esented

whether

is table

 the differ

flect whether there iffere

entions be

pact i

tween Cohor

the secon ar for t bgroup

ar

ted. Fo

classif

mple, f

LL

L statu 

one to the study

pacts of the inte E

d

le are not adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing.

ETS. V

ELL = English language lear TS = tional g Serv GRA Group ing As ment a iagnos aluatio TOSCRF = Test of t Cont 

*Significantly different from p-values d ltiple

 Esti

p- p- p- p

mate 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score 

(4.16) 4.13 0.05 -1.25 0.66 1.86 0.56 - 2.06 2.79 3.17 0.59 3.08 0.85 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 5.27 2.81 0.06 -1.28 1.92 0.51 0.63 2.80 0.82 -1.15 3.36 0.73 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

- 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median 

(68 percent) -3.24 3.81 0.40 -1.46 3.52 0.68 -5.76 3.46 0.10 10.21* 4.57 0.03 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 2.01 5.12 0.70 10.33* 09 0.02 0.24 4.75 0.96 14 5.21 09 

4. 9. 0.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.5) 4.02 2.81 0.16 3.30* 50 0.03 -0 04 30 0.99 -9 01* 2.96 0.00 

1. . 3. .

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -3.88 2.71 0.16 -5.36* 2.05 0.01 -2.88 3.64 0.43 4.52 2.95 0.13 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 1 38 . 2 99 . 0 65 . 0 18 . 2 12 . 0 93 . -0.45 3 85 . 0 91 . 4 02 . 3 32 . 0 23 . 
L.33 

TABLE L.16 

DIFF IN ECTS ON THE NC OLLOW-UP TE EE UBGROUPS, FI ORT

Pr SS Read eal ding f owledg 

ERENCES EFF ETS SCIE E F ST BETW N S RST COH

oject CRI ReadAbout for R Rea or Kn e 

 Estimate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

Error mate 

d 

r 

Standar pvalue Esti Standar p- value Esti Standar p- value Esti Standar Erro p- value 

Subgroups Defined by Student Characteristics and Prior Achievement 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above national norm - 3 3.53 .71 0.34 3.82 2.77 0.17 - 3 7.72* .24 0.02 -0.12 2.79 0 

.97 

Pretest TOSCRF score, above sample median -6.12* 2.68 0.03 3.94 2.73 0.15 -2.41 2.71 0.38 0.85 2.70 0.75 Pretest TOSCRF score, tothird (vs. bottom) 

p 

-2.29 1.78 0.20 2.85 1.86 0.13 -3.95* 1.46 0.01 0.03 2.07 0.99 

Pretest TOSCRF score, middle third (vs. bottom) -2.50 2.65 0.35 6.39 3.40 0.06 5.53 2.73 0.05 8.88* 4.24 0.04 Pretest TOSCRF score, top third ( s. mi v ddle) -0 24 . 3 00 . 0 94 . -0 58 . 2 40 . 0 81 . -2 08 . 1 91 . 0 28 . 0 80 . 2 25 . 0 72 . Pretest GRADE score, above 

national norm -1.67 2.93 0.57 1.56 2.38 0.51 -1.46 3.91 0.71 2.71 3.68 0.46 

Pretest GRADE score, above sample median -1.60 2.76 0.57 0.77 2.29 0.74 -2.24 3.77 0.55 2.35 3.55 0. 

51 

Pretest GRADE score, top third (vs. bottom) - 2 1.26 .51 0.62 2.24 2.18 0.31 - 2 1.90 .18 0.39 2.07 2.55 0 

.42 

Pretest GRADE score, middle third (vs. bottom) -3.93 2.56 0.13 -0.18 3.42 0.96 -5.73* 2.58 0.03 -0.39 2.56 0.88 Pretest GRADE score, top 

third (vs. m ) -0.52 2.55 0.84 0.60 iddle 2.46 0.81 2.21 2.04 0.28 -0.97 2.83 0.73 

Classified as ELL -4.72 4.19 0.26 -4.82 3.09 0.12 6.35 4.14 0.13 -9.28 5.21 0.08 

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Characteristics 

Above Sample Teaching Experien

Median 

ce (10 

Years) 1.32 2.67 0.62 0.90 2.71 0.74 -0.26 4.23 0.95 1.29 3.36 0.70 

More than 5 Years Teaching Experience 0.83 2.55 0.75 -3.04 3.36 0.37 1.48 4.96 0.77 -3.73 5.02 0.46 Above Sample Median Teacher Reading Instruction Professional Development (12.5 hours) 2.89 3.36 0.39 1.59 2.42 0.51 0.29 3.24 0.93 0.89 3.99 0.82 
Table L.16 (continued) 

L.34 eading compre n test nistere tud e estimates pr d in t e refl eth is a ntial i n t nd ye the su p li r exa for EL u

determine ence in im rv t 1 students who are (and e not) ied as 

, when they were in sixth grade. I other words, in the second year, do Cohort 1 ELL stu ents experience larger sustained impacts of the inte

not classified as ELL? The p-values presented in this tab The science reading comprehension ass

es in the regression model include pretest GRADE and TOSCRF scores, student ethnicity and race, student ELL status, school location, teacher r

ner; E Testi vic ADE = p Rea sse and D stic E on; RF = Silen e

zero at the .05 level. This me e of statistical significance is based on p-values that are not adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing. 

Project CRISS ReadAbout Read For Real Reading For Knowledge 

SOURCE: R hensio s admi d by s y team.NOTE: Th esente

whether

his tabl

 the differ

ect wh er there differe

entions be

mpact i

tween Cohor

he seco ar for bgrou

ar

sted. Fo

 classif

mple,

 LL

L stat

 is statistically

one to the study

pacts of the inte E

n d

le are not adjusted for multiple-hypotheses testing.

Variabl

ELL = English language lear ETS = ducational ng Ser e; GR Grou ding A ssment iagno valuati TOSC Test of t Cont 

*Significantly different from asur

 Esti

p- p- p- -

mate 

Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error value Estimate Standard Error p value 

Above Sample Median of Teacher Efficacy Scale Score (4.16) 4.42 0.05 -1.7 2.19 2.52 0.50 3.56 0.19 1. 2.67 50 3.39 0.66 

Subgroups Defined by School Characteristics

In Schools with Professional Culture Scale Score Above Sample Median (5.67) 3.54 3.26 0.28 0.67 3.91 0.86 0.18 2.99 0.95 2.55 4.49 0.57 In Schools with Proportiof Students Eligible foror Price Lunch 

on 

 Free 

 ReducedAbove Sample Median 

(68 percent) -0.98 3.57 0.78 -1.16 3.01 0.70 2.45 3.65 0.51 -4.49 6.64 0.50 

In Schools with Proportiof Students Classified as ELLs Above Sample Median 

on 

(12 percent) 5.82 4.20 0.17 71* 3.28 0.02 56 3.65 67 1.38 4.52 0.76 

7. 1. 0.

Subgroups Defined by Teacher Pra tices c

Above Sample Median Traditional Interaction Scale Score (499.5) 3.58 2.39 0.14 34* 2.17 0.02 1.21 4.41 79 0.24 2.82 0.93 

5. 0.

Above Sample Median Reading Strategy Guidance Scale Score (500.0) -2.22 2.64 0.40 -6.03* 2.35 0.01 1.50 2.79 0.59 0.47 3.68 0.90 Above Sample Median Classroom Management Scale Score (502.7) 3 24 . 3 41 . 0 35 . 5 62* . 2 24 . 0 01 . 1 53 . 2 79 . 0 59 . 0 67 . 3 46 . 0 85 .