View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Supplemental Reading Interventions Implemented by Paraprofessionals: A Meta-Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Supplemental Reading Interventions Implemented by Paraprofessionals: A Meta-Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Jones, Brian T. (ORCID 0000-0002-8813-4024), Erchul, William P. (ORCID 0000-0002-1412-0746), Geraghty, Cathleen A.
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Apr 2021 58(4):723-741.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Descriptors: Reading Instruction, Supplementary Education, Intervention, Paraprofessional School Personnel, Instructional Effectiveness, Effect Size, Spelling, Decoding (Reading)
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22427
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: Preventative and intensive reading intervention can be administered to at-risk students in a systematic way to help facilitate gains on literacy outcomes. Despite this fact, there are clear barriers to implementation. One solution may be to use paraprofessionals to provide supplemental reading instruction. This study employed meta-analytic procedures to address two questions: (a) what is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessionals as implementers of reading interventions? and (b) in which areas are paraprofessionals most effective? A literature search of research from 2001 to 2017 yielded 76 studies. Nine studies meeting a priori inclusion criteria were coded for demographic information and six common reading outcomes. The mean ES across outcomes was 0.55, and spelling and decoding emerged as areas to inform future research. Although these meta-analytic findings must be interpreted with caution due to issues of sample size and heterogeneity of variance, involving paraprofessionals as reading interventionists appears to be a highly promising strategy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1287330
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFfWBQirhvbiWfThLdo1aZgAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJdPymIXw_1zFICbPwIBEICBmo7BGVnEb0KgwTVGizlbimHF2R3selnMJftqXTlQ8jzzZl4GsoqxqYWjW2ITaIPQGtkJzUjB4FR09HK8pkgif0MvXXYt5a07Ic0XI8P7GmjQIpFg9NBLyzr7EtV66ByQIuFaonlvUPRHh2_CEpwssB9HQYpxh17ndW6Yxk5JJ6uTL2bclVnk94g0fB9pP6nuhn3G38VJ4-Mplao=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0149247649;pis01apr.21;2021Mar15.03:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0149247649-1">Supplemental reading interventions implemented by paraprofessionals: A meta‐analysis </title> <p>Preventative and intensive reading intervention can be administered to at‐risk students in a systematic way to help facilitate gains on literacy outcomes. Despite this fact, there are clear barriers to implementation. One solution may be to use paraprofessionals to provide supplemental reading instruction. This study employed meta‐analytic procedures to address two questions: (a) what is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessionals as implementers of reading interventions? and (b) in which areas are paraprofessionals most effective? A literature search of research from 2001 to 2017 yielded 76 studies. Nine studies meeting a priori inclusion criteria were coded for demographic information and six common reading outcomes. The mean ES across outcomes was 0.55, and spelling and decoding emerged as areas to inform future research. Although these meta‐analytic findings must be interpreted with caution due to issues of sample size and heterogeneity of variance, involving paraprofessionals as reading interventionists appears to be a highly promising strategy.</p> <p>Keywords: literacy; meta‐analysis; paraeducators; paraprofessionals; reading interventions</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Reading is a fundamental part of functioning in modern society. For many, reading happens automatically and unconsciously when looking at a street sign, checking a text message, or seeing a funny T‐shirt. The skills involved in literacy facilitate the acquisition of knowledge across numerous content domains. Reading is a complex process requiring individuals to fluently apply phonemic skills, activate their lexicon to connect what they are reading to prior knowledge and experience, and successfully comprehend what they are reading (Francis, Kulesz, & Benoit, 2018; Lyon et al., 2001; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). The development of reading involves multiple components (i.e., phonological awareness, alphabetics, decoding, word reading, reading comprehension, and reading vocabulary) that interact with each other and change in importance as literacy skills evolve (Francis et al., 2018). If any of these components are not mastered (especially lower‐order processes such as reading connected text fluently), the ability to devote cognitive resources to higher‐order processes, such as reading comprehension, becomes nearly impossible (Kim, 2015; Perfetti, 1985; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, & Torgesen, 2008).</p> <p>Students who are struggling readers may be disadvantaged across multiple content areas when compared to students whose reading skills are developing typically. These disparities typically increase over time, with typically developing readers sharpening their skills, thus "getting richer," and their less‐skilled peers "getting poorer," falling further behind (Cain & Oakhill, 2011; Catts et al., 2016; Stanovich, 1986). Commonly referred to as the "Matthew Effect" (Stanovich, 1986), this process of cumulative deficit results in students' reading difficulties becoming harder to remediate as time progresses (Juel, 1988; Ozernov‐Palchik et al., 2017).</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-3">Preventative and intensive intervention: Systematic service delivery</hd> <p>To mitigate the Matthew effect, educators must intervene and provide targeted, high‐quality literacy instruction to struggling readers. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) recommended direct, explicit instruction in five core literacy components (namely, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension). Each component builds on the one before it, so if a student struggles in any of these areas, instruction can be remediated to target the necessary skill.</p> <p>Along these lines, two synthesis studies (i.e., Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Wanzek et al., 2013) analyzed over a decade of reading intervention research to evaluate the overall effectiveness of extensive (i.e., at least 75 sessions) interventions that targeted specific reading‐related skills. For younger students (K–3rd grade), results suggested interventions incorporating targeted phonics instruction paired with an opportunity to practice those skills while reading text were the most effective. Interestingly, despite the interventions studied reporting durations of 5 months to 2.5 years, few differences were seen in the magnitude of effect sizes based on intervention duration. With older students (4th–12th grade), gains occurred early and growth stabilized before the end of the longer interventions (Wanzek et al., 2013). Although Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) reported that instruction provided 1:1 to younger students was more beneficial, this effect did not hold true for older students (Wanzek et al., 2013). Finally, results supported providing intervention earlier rather than later (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Although interventions for older students can be effective, the gains are less substantial and the interventions have more components, which can be more complicated to deliver consistently (Wanzek et al., 2013).</p> <p>The different components of reading develop bidirectionally over time, with the importance of a component differing depending on the child's level of acquisition (Catts, 2018; Francis et al., 2018; Kim, 2015). Early reading interventions that are standardized and focus on addressing phonological awareness, phonics, and word recognition, and fluency can result in positive gains for struggling readers in Grade K through 3 (Wanzek et al., 2018). As students develop, the importance of developing reading fluency and targeting reading comprehension becomes more important (Stevens, Walker, & Vaughn, 2017). Interventions for older students also tend to focus more on developing reading comprehension, vocabulary, activating background knowledge, and teaching metacognitive skills. Although reading fluency interventions such as repeated reading may help facilitate reading comprehension, a growing body of research suggests that older struggling students also need direct instruction in reading comprehension. There is also evidence to support systematically planning for generalization and maintenance by incorporating vocabulary from content area classes in reading comprehension intervention sessions (Vaughn, Roberts, Wexler, Vaughn, & Fall, 2015). These types of multicomponent interventions can be effective but are more difficult to implement and result in slower gains as the targeted skills do not develop as quickly (Scammacca et al., 2016; Stevens et al., 2017).</p> <p>Targeted reading intervention can prevent and remediate problems with literacy acquisition; however, intervention can be costly. A multitiered model of intervention delivery is a way to manage resources more efficiently, allowing services to be provided to as many struggling readers as possible. For younger students, there is a focus on providing whole‐class, systematic direct instruction in basic skills (e.g., phonics), vocabulary, and increasing opportunities to practice those skills (e.g., reading connected text). Students who do not respond to whole class support are provided with additional small group intervention (typically around 30 min a day) that is aligned with the whole group instruction but is more intensive and provides additional opportunities to practice with guided feedback. For students who do not demonstrate growth with small group instruction, intervention is made more intensive by decreasing group size and/or increasing time (Coyne et al., 2018; Fien, Smith, Smolkowski, Baker, & Nelson, 2015; O'Connor, 2000; Wanzek et al., 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-4">Problems with implementation</hd> <p>Although the field of reading interventions has been highly researched, issues arise when attempts are made to implement evidence‐based practices. One such issue involves the amount of time teachers have for actual instruction. Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) conducted a series of studies to determine how much intervention time is necessary for struggling readers to make gains on reading outcomes and found that at least 30‐min sessions were required to facilitate gains. Additionally, they suggested that those who do not respond adequately to intervention may require even longer periods of specialized instruction to demonstrate improvement. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) synthesized 37 years of research to document teacher thoughts on providing specialized instruction and intervention services. They found that although teachers recognize the importance of inclusion and differentiating instruction to meet students' needs, over two‐thirds feel that they do not have adequate time to provide the necessary services to intervene for students with disabilities.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-5">Roles for paraprofessionals</hd> <p>One seemingly untapped resource that can address issues facing implementation of high quality reading instruction are paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals are adults who are employed by a school district to assist teachers in their classrooms and work with students. Although they assist with instruction, paraprofessionals usually do not hold professional teaching credentials. Their roles usually include providing one‐on‐one tutoring support to students, assisting with classroom management, and providing instructional support services under the supervision of a teacher (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). To ensure the quality of the services they provide, the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 before it clearly requires that paraprofessionals obtain a secondary education diploma, or an equivalent, and complete either 2 years of higher education or the requirements for an associate degree.</p> <p>With their roles clearly defined, paraprofessionals have the potential to greatly extend the instructional reach of teachers. Causton‐Theoharis, Giangreco, Doyle, and Vadasy (2007) have likened paraprofessionals to sous‐chefs and offered several ways that they can support direct instruction of literacy skills. In addition to training paraprofessionals on evidence‐based reading and behavioral approaches, the authors suggested that paraprofessionals be used to supplement teacher instruction rather than supplant it. This is to say that a highly qualified teacher should always provide core instruction, but a paraprofessional can provide one‐on‐one or small group tutoring to complement and reinforce a teacher's lesson.</p> <p>The effectiveness of a supplemental approach was demonstrated by Brown, Morris, and Fields (2005) who evaluated one‐on‐one tutoring as a method to deliver reading intervention. Tutors were either teachers or paraprofessionals. Although all tutors were supervised by reading specialists, paraprofessional tutors received additional guidance from the teachers with whom they worked. Not only did the authors find that the treatment group outperformed the control group but also they found that the students who were tutored by paraprofessionals performed nearly as well as the students who were tutored by teachers. No significant mean differences were found across the outcomes of word recognition (Para <emph>M</emph> = 31.2; Teacher <emph>M</emph> = 32.4; <emph>F</emph> = 1.5), passage reading (Para <emph>M</emph> = 3.9; Teacher <emph>M</emph> = 4.4; <emph>F</emph> = 1.8), and woodcock passage comprehension (Para <emph>M</emph> = 28.8; Teacher <emph>M</emph> = 30.0; <emph>F</emph> = 1.0). The only area where teachers significantly outperformed paraprofessionals was in woodcock pseudoword decoding (Para <emph>M</emph> = 23.3; Teacher <emph>M</emph> = 28.1; <emph>F</emph> = 11.3). Additionally, Samson, Hines, and Li (2015) found three key components associated with the effective use of paraprofessionals working with K–3 populations. Paraprofessionals implementing intervention needed to receive training on delivery of service, needed ongoing supervision, and should be delivering scripted lessons. When provided with training, supervision, and scripted lessons, paraprofessionals can provide reading intervention to struggling elementary age (grades 1–6) students (Jones, Larsen, Sudweeks, Young, & Gibb, 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-6">The current study</hd> <p>Direct explicit instruction that targets core literacy skills has been demonstrated to mitigate the Matthew Effect and facilitate gains for struggling readers across a body of empirical research (e.g., Catts, 2018; Francis et al., 2018; Kim, 2015; Stevens et al., 2017; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Wanzek et al., 2013). These gains have been replicated with a variety of at‐risk groups, such as those struggling with emergent literacy skills, low socioeconomic status, and/or limited English proficiency. However, problems often arise regarding the implementation of this direct instruction. One way to address these issues is to utilize paraprofessionals to supplement teacher‐delivered instruction. Because paraprofessionals can have clearly defined roles and, with appropriate supervision, can devote more time to delivering intensive intervention services to students, they show great potential to be an effective complement to classroom core instruction.</p> <p>Although supplemental reading interventions implemented by paraprofessionals have been studied and have produced positive results, findings from this body of literature have not been aggregated and evaluated further for overall effects. Consequently, this study used meta‐analytic procedures in an attempt to answer two questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. What is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. In which areas of reading intervention are paraprofessionals most effective?</item> </ulist> <p>In addition, the current study sought to provide insights into how paraprofessionals may be viable interventionists by assessing which variables may be moderating reading outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-7">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149247649-8">Inclusion criteria</hd> <p>A computer search was conducted using ERIC and PsychINFO to locate intervention studies involving paraprofessionals that were published between 2001 and 2017. This range was selected to reflect the implementation of the Title I requirements, which mandate that paraprofessionals working at Title 1 schools must have either completed 2 years of higher education, obtained an associate's degree, or pass a rigorous academic assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Depending on the school district or region, paraprofessionals are known by several different job titles. To capture this array, the following search terms were used: instructional assistants, paraeducators, paraprofessionals, Title I aides, and reading interventions.</p> <p>Studies were selected based on the following criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. The study was reported in English in a peer‐reviewed journal and was available on the internet. This criterion was selected so that practitioners would be able to feasibly locate any included study.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Participants in the study were students with reading difficulties (i.e., below expected grade level in reading achievement).</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Interventions were provided as a part of the school day program (i.e., not at home, clinic, or camp).</item> <p></p> <item> 4. The dependent variables addressed reading outcomes and were measured with standardized assessment tools (i.e., not researcher‐designed measures).</item> <p></p> <item> 5. The study was primary research (i.e., not a follow‐up, synthesis, or a meta‐analysis).</item> <p></p> <item> 6. Because a central aim was to make inferences about the paraprofessional U.S. workforce, it was also important that the study be conducted in the United States.</item> <p></p> <item> 7. The study was conducted using either an experimental or quasi‐experimental group design.</item> <p></p> <item> 8. The study had to contain at least one treatment group in which the intervention was solely provided by paraprofessionals and one nontreatment control group.</item> <p></p> <item> 9. Paraprofessionals were employed by the school district (i.e., not volunteers or researchers).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0149247649-9">Study selection</hd> <p>The use of various titles for paraprofessionals in the search terms led to fairly broad results, and the initial search yielded 76 abstracts. Many studies were related to the use of paraprofessionals in clinical and hospital settings. Explicit statements in the abstracts indicated that 49 studies did not meet criteria. After the studies from both databases were reconciled to eliminate duplicates, 17 studies remained and were further examined to determine if they met criteria. Two studies were excluded because they were follow‐up studies. Two studies did not have a treatment group in which the intervention was solely implemented by paraprofessionals. One study was not conducted in the United States. Another did not measure outcomes relevant to this current study. One study did not use standardized assessment tools. One did not employ a group design. Thus, a total of nine studies met criteria for inclusion in the current meta‐analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-10">Interrater agreement</hd> <p>Interrater agreement was calculated by the first author (the first rater) with the assistance of a school psychology doctoral student who served as a second rater. Of the 17 studies that passed the abstract screening, three (18%) were selected using a random number generator and evaluated by the second‐rater. The nine previously listed inclusion criteria were applied to determine if the randomly selected sample qualified for the current study. Additionally, the sample was evaluated to determine if there was enough information to calculate an effect size for any of the six outcome moderators (i.e., phonological awareness, alphabetics, decoding, word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension; each moderator is described below). Both the first author and the second rater were in 100% agreement on the inclusion and effect size data for the randomly selected sample.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-11">Coding procedure</hd> <p>The procedure for coding the included studies involved reading each article and recording relevant data onto an Excel spreadsheet. Coded data included the year of the study, the names of the authors, and the country where the study was implemented. According to the inclusion criteria, study participants were students with reading difficulties. Other attributes that were coded included the number of participants in each subgroup, number of males and females in each subgroup, grade level of each subgroup, and ethnicity.</p> <p>In addition to the sample characteristics, outcome data from the following categories were coded.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-12">Phonological awareness</hd> <p>This category refers to knowledge of letter sounds. It was measured using the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte, & Pearson, 1999), Test of Phonological Awareness (Torgesen & Bryant, 1994), Test of Preschool Early literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007)—Phonological Awareness subtest, and/or Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kindergarten (PALS‐K; Invernizzi, Meier, Swank, & Juel, 2003) Letter Sounds subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-13">Alphabetics</hd> <p>This category refers to the skills involved with accurately identifying and naming letters. It was measured using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002), Letter Naming Fluency subtest, TOPEL (Lonigan et al., 2007)—Print Awareness subtest, and/or Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kindergarten (PALS‐K; Invernizzi et al., 2003) Letter Knowledge subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-14">Decoding</hd> <p>This category refers to applying Phonological Awareness and Alphabetics to read new words. It was measured using the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (WRMT; Woodcock, 1987), Woodcock‐Johnson Tests of Achievement (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001) Word Attack subtest, and/or DIBELS (Good & Kaminski, 2002) Nonsense Word Fluency subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-15">Word reading</hd> <p>This category refers the skills involved with fluently reading words. It was measured using the DIBELS (Good & Kaminski, 2002) Oral Reading Fluency subtest, WRMT (Woodcock, 1987), and/or Woodcock‐Johnson Tests of Achievement (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001) Word Identification subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-16">Spelling</hd> <p>This category refers to the skills involved with correctly spelling words. It was measured using the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006)—Revised Spelling Subtest, and/or PALS‐K (Invernizzi et al., 2003) Spelling subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-17">Reading comprehension</hd> <p>This category refers to the skills involved with reading and understanding text. It was measured using the WRMT (Woodcock, 1987), Woodcock‐Johnson Tests of Achievement (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001) Passage Comprehension subtest, Gates‐MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT; MacGinitie, 1989), and/or Gray Oral Reading Tests (GORT; Wiederholt & Bryant, 1992) Comprehension subtest.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-18">Calculation of effect size</hd> <p>For all nine studies, the Hedges (1981) procedure for calculating unbiased estimates of Cohen's <emph>d</emph> was used (this statistic is also known as Hedges's <emph>g</emph>). The procedure was chosen for two reasons. First, the primary aim of this study was to compare mean differences across paraprofessional‐implemented intervention outcomes. Second, because the scale of measurement may not be comparable across all of the included studies, a standardized mean difference is required. Hedges's <emph>g</emph> was calculated by using the means and <emph>SD</emph>s for treatment and comparison groups when such data were provided. In some cases, Cohen's <emph>d</emph> was reported and means and <emph>SD</emph>s were not available. To interpret effect sizes, Cohen's (1988) criteria were used. Effects <0.20 are considered small, those between 0.20 and 0.80 are considered medium, and those above 0.80 are considered large. The following formula was specifically used to calculate <emph>ES</emph>:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22427:pits22427-math-0001" display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi mathvariant="italic">ES</mi><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mo>(</mo><msub><mi>X</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi mathvariant="italic">pre</mi></mrow></msub><mo>)</mo><mo>−</mo><mo>(</mo><msub><mi>X</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mo>−</mo><msub><mi>X</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi mathvariant="italic">pre</mi></mrow></msub><mo>)</mo></mrow><msqrt><mfrac><mrow><mo>(</mo><msub><mi>n</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>)</mo><msubsup><mi>S</mi><mn>1</mn><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>+</mo><mo>(</mo><msub><mi>n</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mo>−</mo><mn>1</mn><mo>)</mo><msubsup><mi>S</mi><mn>2</mn><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><msub><mi>n</mi><mn>1</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>n</mi><mn>2</mn></msub><mo>−</mo><mn>2</mn><mo>)</mo></mrow></mfrac></msqrt></mfrac><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0149247649-19">Random‐effects model</hd> <p>This meta‐analysis employed a random‐effects model to account for the variability of treatment effects and the variability attributed to the sample of the population. The random‐effects model is represented by the following equation:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22427:pits22427-math-0002" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>y</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mi>R</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>e</mi><mi>i</mi></msub><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>A Cochran's <emph>Q</emph> test for homogeneity of variance (Cooper, 1998) was also conducted to determine whether the observed data are practically significant using the following equation:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22427:pits22427-math-0003" display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mi>Q</mi><mo>=</mo><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mo>(</mo><mi>w</mi><mo>×</mo><msup><mi mathvariant="italic">ES</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>−</mo><mfrac><msup><mstyle mathvariant="italic"><mo>(</mo><mo>∑</mo><msub><mi>w</mi><mrow><mi>s</mi><mi>m</mi></mrow></msub><mo>×</mo><mi>E</mi><msub><mi>S</mi><mrow><mi>s</mi><mi>m</mi></mrow></msub><mo>)</mo></mstyle><mn>2</mn></msup><mrow><mo>∑</mo><msub><mi>w</mi><mi mathvariant="italic">sm</mi></msub></mrow></mfrac><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>If the resulting <emph>Q</emph>‐value does not exceed the.05 critical value relative to the degrees of freedom of the sample size, then the assumption of homogeneity of variance can be satisfied, meaning that the variance of the current sample of effect sizes is not significantly greater than is expected from sampling error alone. Although Cochran's <emph>Q</emph> is a useful method of testing for heterogeneity, the statistic overestimates the level of heterogeneity between studies (Higgins & Thompson, 2002). To give a more appropriate idea of the impact of heterogeneity existing between studies, Higgins and Thompson developed the <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> statistic to gauge the impact of heterogeneity. Scores above 0.50 are considered to be highly impacted by heterogeneity. The following equation was used to calculate the <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> statistic:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" altimg="urn:x-wiley:00333085:media:pits22427:pits22427-math-0004" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mi>I</mi><mn>2</mn></msup><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mrow><mi>Q</mi><mo>−</mo><mi mathvariant="italic">df</mi></mrow><mi>Q</mi></mfrac><mo>.</mo></math> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0149247649-20">RESULTS</hd> <p>Participant demographics can be seen in Table 1. Overall, there was a total of 747 participants, with grade levels ranging from preschool to second. Of the total participants, 44% were assigned to groups in which intervention was solely administered by paraprofessionals. The other 56% participated in nontreatment control groups. Erhi et al. (2007) also included a third group in which intervention was solely administered by teachers. Although this additional group was not included in the current analysis, some of the demographic numbers were affected, resulting in a discrepancy between the number of students counted by gender and the number of students included in the current analysis. Across the nine studies, males accounted for 62% of the participants. Seven studies provided information regarding participants' ethnicity. Two studies (i.e., Nelson, Sanders, & Gonzalez, 2009; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006) categorized participants as "Minorities" without a further breakdown of ethnicity. Given data reported, 72% of participants were members of a minority ethnic group.</p> <p>1 TableParticipant characteristics by study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Vadasy et al. (2006)</th><th align="left">Ehri et al. (2007)</th><th align="left">Lane et al. (2007)</th><th align="left">Vadasy et al. (2007)</th><th align="left">Nelson et al. (2009)</th><th align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2009)</th><th align="left">Bingham et al. (2010)0002</th><th align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2010)</th><th align="left">Yurick et al. (2012)</th><th>Total</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 67)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 96)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 24)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 43)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 88)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 148)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 63)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 148)</th><th align="left">(<italic>n</italic> = 70)</th><th align="left">(<italic>N</italic> = 747)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Grade</td><td align="left">K</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">Pre</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">K</td><td align="left">K</td><td align="left">K</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">13</td><td align="left">23</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">44</td><td align="left">38</td><td align="left">67</td><td align="left">38</td><td align="left">326</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">70</td><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">20</td><td align="left">47</td><td align="left">104</td><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">81</td><td align="left">32</td><td align="left">421</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="left">39</td><td align="left">940001</td><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">46</td><td align="left">85</td><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">82</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">466</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="left">28</td><td align="left">900001</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">22</td><td align="left">42</td><td align="left">63</td><td align="left">27</td><td align="left">66</td><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">369</td></tr><tr><td align="left">White</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">17</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">49</td><td align="left">53</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">25</td><td align="left">207</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Minority</td><td align="left">58</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">26</td><td align="left">67</td><td align="left">99</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">127</td><td align="left">45</td><td align="left">443</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Asian</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">16</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">30</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">54</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Black</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">34</td><td align="left">36</td><td align="left">119</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hispanic</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">9</td><td align="left">59</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">123</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other/mixed</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">‐</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">11</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">22</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Ehri et al. (2007) also contained a third, teacher‐only group. Although this teacher‐only group was not used in the analysis, gender numbers are affected.</p> <p>2 b Bingham et al. (2010) did not explain the discrepancy in the white and minority totals.</p> <p>Students in both treatment and control groups received Tier 1 English Language Arts instruction using a published curriculum. All intervention was considered supplementary (see Table 2). Studies used a variety of intervention strategies; however, when the interventions were not part of a published intervention package, the researchers created scripts for paraeducators to use when providing tutoring. Published intervention packages included Reading Rescue (i.e., Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, & Gross, 2007), Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (i.e., Lane, Fletcher, Carter, Dejud, & DeLorenzo, 2007), Quick Reads (i.e., Vadasy & Sanders, 2009), Systematic Engaging Early Literacy (i.e., Bingham, Hall‐Kenyon, & Culatta, 2010), and the Early Reading Intervention Curriculum (i.e., Yurick, Cartledge, Kourea, & Keyes, 2012). Four of the studies used researcher‐designed strategies that were not related to a published intervention package (i.e., Nelson et al., 2009; 2009; Vadasy & Sanders, 2010; Vadasy et al., 2006; Vadasy, Sanders, & Tudor, 2007).</p> <p>2 TableIntervention and training variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Title 1 schools included</th><th align="left">Focus of intervention</th><th align="left">Treatment‐manualized (Y/N)</th><th align="left">Control‐manualized (Y/N)</th><th align="left">Initial training</th><th align="left">Supervision/follow‐up training</th><th align="left">Treatment integrity checks (Y/N)</th><th align="left">Supplementary instruction (Y/N)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Bingham et al. (2010)</td><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="left">PA & P</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">6 h</td><td align="left">12 h over the course of the year</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ehri et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left">PA, P, RF, V, & RC</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">For some students</td><td align="left">2 days</td><td align="left">3 days and access to on‐site coordinator</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lane et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="left">PA, RF, & S</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">2 h</td><td align="left">30 min per week</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson et al. (2009)</td><td align="left">Head start</td><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">Half‐day</td><td align="left">Initial two sessions observed, and corrective feedback provided</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2006)</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left">PA & P</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">For some students</td><td align="left">4 h</td><td align="left">Ongoing coaching, varied by tutor needs</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="left">P & RF</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">3 h</td><td align="left">Bi‐weekly throughout the intervention (~60‐90 min total)</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2009)</td><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="left">RF</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">4 h</td><td align="left">Minimum of 6 h of coaching and monthly meetings</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2010)</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left">P</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">2 h</td><td align="left">Ongoing coaching, varied by tutor needs (~1 h total)</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Yurick et al. (2012)</td><td align="left">Not reported</td><td align="left">PA & P</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">N</td><td align="left">1 h</td><td align="left">Access to a video of intervention</td><td align="left">Y</td><td align="left">Y</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Abbreviations: PA, Phonological Awareness; P, Phonics; RC, Reading Comprehension; RF, Reading Fluency; S, Spelling; V, Vocabulary.</p> <p>In all studies, training was provided to the paraeducators, as were initial observations and corrective feedback, ongoing fidelity checks, and additional coaching. In some cases, coaching was scheduled (e.g., Lane et al., 2007), but in most studies support was provided as needed. Initial training provided in most studies was several hours; however, two studies provided a whole day (i.e., Bingham et al., 2010) or longer (Ehri et al., 2007) of training.</p> <p>The first research question asked, what is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions? Toward this end, each study was coded for outcome means and standard deviations at pretest and at posttest across each of the six categories (see Table 3). These data were used to calculate <emph>ES</emph>s (see Table 4), which yielded 26 in all. Mean <emph>ES</emph>s for each study ranged from −0.07 (Vadasy & Sanders, 2009) to 1.14 (Bingham et al., 2010). The overall <emph>ES</emph> across all nine studies was 0.55, falling into the moderate range (95% CI: 0.28–0.81).</p> <p>3 TableMeans and SDs of outcome variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Phonological Awareness</th><th align="left">Alphabetics</th><th align="left">Decoding</th><th align="left">Word Reading</th><th align="left">Spelling</th><th align="left">Reading Comprehension</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Pre/post</th><th align="left">Pre/post</th><th align="left">Pre/post</th><th align="left">Pre/post</th><th align="left">Pre/post</th><th align="left">Pre/post</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2006)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">83 (8.6)/88 (11.9)</td><td align="left">6 (5.6)/21 (14.2)</td><td align="left">90 (1.4)/98 (9.5)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">28 (26.3)</td><td align="left">89 (7.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">83 (8)/85 (10.2)</td><td align="left">4 (5.3)/20 (10.4)</td><td align="left">90 (1.3)/90 (6.9)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">14 (21.6)</td><td align="left">87 (6.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ehri et al. (2007)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">46.5 (11)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">38.7 (10.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lane et al. (2007)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">72.17 (10.67)/84.63 (12.33)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">21.21 (19.09)/59.06 (28.66)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">73.64 (10.58)/76.4 (8.5)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">23.54 (26.26)/48.88 (21.65)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2007)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">89 (5.76)/96.6 (5.82)</td><td align="left">26.3 (14.05)/52 (21.24)</td><td align="left">7.9 (3.26)/12.6 (3.98)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">89.6 (3.88)/93.9 (5.52)</td><td align="left">26.8 (13.7)/41.1 (19.86)</td><td align="left">9 (3.98)/11.7 (3.61)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson et al. (2009)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">11.46 (5.31)/15 (6.28)</td><td align="left">5.9 (6.86)/12.4 (8.81)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">10.6 (6.3)/13.38 (6.23)</td><td align="left">6.8 (7.93)/9.9 (9.26)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2009)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">23.57 (2.28)/24.45 (2.02)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">96.89 (8.34)/97.7 (6.32)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">88.75 (12.9)/94.89 (16.51)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">23.64 (2.75)/24.45 (1.76)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">96.75 (8.71)/98.66 (9.24)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">84.57 (11.72)/92.21 (14.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bingham et al. (2010)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">7.73 (5.74)/18.89 (4.64)</td><td align="left">12.27 (6.64)/22.68 (3.81)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.73 (2.5)/13.22 (5.15)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">13.42(7.45)/18.88(6.26)</td><td align="left">16.04 (6.83)/20.68 (6.52)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">7.96 (5.94)/12.44 (6.12)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2010)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">89.17 (9.72)/98.21 (13.22)</td><td align="left">14.76 (7.94)/48.51 (14.13)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">93.62 (7.1)/112.47 (9.75)</td><td align="left">8.34 (14.63)/77.72 (34.68)</td><td align="left">103 (10.43)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">86.11 (7.47)/92.6 (10.37)</td><td align="left">14.38 (13.52)/35.8 (17.33)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">93.1 (4.97)/102.84 (11.25)</td><td align="left">8.29 (10.66)/44.89 (34.9)</td><td align="left">95.2 (9.73)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Yurick et al. (2012)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Treatment</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">2.1 (0.96)/5.8 (1.6)</td><td align="left">9.6 (4.2)/19.5 (3.5)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">3.2 (1.4)/6.2 (1.9)</td><td align="left">13.9 (5.2)/21.3 (4.8)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Some outcomes were posttest only.</item> <item>4 TableStudy effect sizes by outcomes</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">PA</th><th align="left">Alphabetics</th><th align="left">Decoding</th><th align="left">Word Reading</th><th align="left">Spelling</th><th align="left">Reading Comp</th><th align="left">Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2006)</td><td align="left">0.27</td><td align="left">−0.08</td><td align="left">0.98</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.59</td><td align="left">0.28</td><td align="left">0.47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ehri et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.71</td><td align="left">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lane et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">0.93</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.56</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.75</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy et al. (2007)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.58</td><td align="left">0.56</td><td align="left">0.53</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nelson et al. (2009)</td><td align="left">0.12</td><td align="left">0.38</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.25</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2009)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.04</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">−0.15</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">−0.09</td><td align="left">−0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bingham et al. (2010)</td><td align="left">1.00</td><td align="left">1.03</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">1.40</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">1.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vadasy and Sanders (2010)</td><td align="left">0.21</td><td align="left">0.79</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.87</td><td align="left">0.94</td><td align="left">0.77</td><td align="left">0.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Yurick et al. (2012)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.4</td><td align="left">0.6</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.50</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Abbreviation: PA, Phonological Awareness.</p> <p>The second research question was, in which areas of reading intervention are paraprofessionals most effective? To address this question, Table 5 shows overall <emph>ES</emph>s moderated by outcome variables. Five of the outcomes produced moderate effects with reading comprehension at the lower end of the range (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.42) and decoding at the upper end (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.61). Spelling was the only outcome to produce an effect in the high range with an <emph>ES</emph> of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.23–1.49). Additionally, only two outcomes produced effects that met the assumption of homogeneity of variance: decoding (<emph>Q</emph> = 2.83, <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> = −0.06) and spelling (<emph>Q</emph> = 5.99, <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.50). The high <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> values associated with all of the other outcomes suggest that much of the variability in the treatment effects was due to real differences in the population sample across the included studies. This finding indicates a need to further examine effect sizes before interpreting them.</p> <p>5 TableMean effect sizes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>K</italic></th><th align="left">Mean <italic>ES</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th><th align="left"><italic>Q</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Overall</td><td align="left">26</td><td char="." align="char">0.55</td><td char="." align="char">0.34</td><td align="left">0.28–0.81</td><td char="." align="char">19.550002</td><td char="." align="char">0.59</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">5</td><td char="." align="char">0.51</td><td char="." align="char">0.42</td><td align="left">−0.02–1.03</td><td char="." align="char">9.500002</td><td char="." align="char">0.58</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alphabetics</td><td align="left">5</td><td char="." align="char">0.43</td><td char="." align="char">0.48</td><td align="left">−0.16–1.02</td><td char="." align="char">18.330003</td><td char="." align="char">0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Decoding</td><td align="left">4</td><td char="." align="char">0.61</td><td char="." align="char">0.25</td><td align="left">0.21–1.02</td><td char="." align="char">2.83</td><td char="." align="char">−0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word Reading</td><td align="left">4</td><td char="." align="char">0.46</td><td char="." align="char">0.43</td><td align="left">−0.23–1.16</td><td char="." align="char">17.50003</td><td char="." align="char">0.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spelling</td><td align="left">4</td><td char="." align="char">0.86</td><td char="." align="char">0.40</td><td align="left">0.23–1.49</td><td char="." align="char">5.99</td><td char="." align="char">0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comp</td><td align="left">4</td><td char="." align="char">0.42</td><td char="." align="char">0.40</td><td align="left">−0.23–1.06</td><td char="." align="char">14.190003</td><td char="." align="char">0.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ES, effect size; PA, Phonological Awareness.</item> <item>7 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>8 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> </ulist> <p>Three patterns emerged when <emph>ES</emph>s were moderated by other variables. First, when effects were examined by grade level (see Table 6), it was observed that effects started at 0.25 in preschool and rose to 0.71 in first grade until the second grade where the effects decreased to 0.24. This pattern was consistent across outcomes with the exception of decoding, which decreased in first grade (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.50) and slightly increased in second grade (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.58). The second pattern is seen when effects were examined by ethnic ratio (see Table 7). Ethnic ratio is defined as the number of minority students over the total number of students. Overall, when the ethnic ratio was low, the effect was high (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.93). In the medium ratio, the effect decreased (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.39) and then increased to a moderate level when the ratio was high (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.56). The pattern was also consistent across outcomes with the exception of phonological awareness, which seemed to have an inverse relation with the ethnic ratio. The final pattern was observed when <emph>ES</emph>s were moderated by the gender ratio (see Table 8). Gender ratio is defined as the number of male participants to the total number of participants. The effects by gender ratio were not as consistent across outcomes as they were in other moderators but when overall effects were observed, the effect size increased as the number of male participants increased.</p> <p>6 TableEffect sizes and SDs by grade level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Pre</th><th align="left">Kinder</th><th align="left">1st</th><th align="left">2nd</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Overall</td><td align="left">0.25 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.69 (0.33)</td><td align="left">0.71 (0.002)</td><td align="left">0.24 (0.44)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">0.12 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.50 (0.44)</td><td align="left">0.93 (NA)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alphabetics</td><td align="left">0.38 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.58 (0.58)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.04 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Decoding</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.69 (0.41)</td><td align="left">0.50 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.58 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word Reading</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.73 (0.20)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.20 (0.50)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spelling</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.97 (0.40)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.53 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comp</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.53 (0.35)</td><td align="left">0.71 (NA)</td><td align="left">−0.09 (NA)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 <emph>Note: SD</emph>s marked "NA" reflect a single <emph>ES</emph> for that category.</item> <item>10 Abbreviation: PA, Phonological Awareness.</item> <item>7 TableEffect sizes and SDs by ethnic ratio</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Low</th><th align="left">Medium</th><th align="left">High</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Overall</td><td align="left">0.93 (0.30)</td><td align="left">0.39 (0.31)</td><td align="left">0.56 (0.22)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">1.00 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.53 (0.57)</td><td align="left">0.24 (0.04)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alphabetics</td><td align="left">1.03 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.21 (0.24)</td><td align="left">0.35 (0.61)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Decoding</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.49 (0.09)</td><td align="left">0.98 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word Reading</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.33 (0.42)</td><td align="left">0.87 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spelling</td><td align="left">1.39 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.53 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.76 (0.25)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comp</td><td align="left">0.71 (NA)</td><td align="left">−0.09 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.53 (0.35)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>11 <emph>Note</emph>: Ethnic ratio is defined as the ratio of minority participants over the total number of participants. Low = <emph>x</emph> < 0.20, medium = 0.20 < <emph>x</emph> < 0.80, and high = <emph>x</emph> > 0.80. <emph>SD</emph>s marked NA reflect a single <emph>ES</emph> for that category.</item> <item>12 Abbreviation: PA, Phonological Awareness.</item> <item>8 TableEffect sizes and SDs by gender ratio</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">0.48–0.60</th><th align="left">0.60–0.70</th><th align="left">0.70–0.80</th><th align="left">>0.90</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Overall</td><td align="left">0.50 (0.41)</td><td align="left">0.49 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.71 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.71 (NA)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PA</td><td align="left">0.40 (0.40)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.93 (NA)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alphabetics</td><td align="left">0.43 (0.48)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Decoding</td><td align="left">0.78 (0.28)</td><td align="left">0.40 (NA)</td><td align="left">0.50 (NA)</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Word Reading</td><td align="left">0.43 (0.52)</td><td align="left">0.59 (NA)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spelling</td><td align="left">0.86 (0.40)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading Comp</td><td align="left">0.32 (0.43)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">0.71 (NA)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>13 <emph>Note</emph>: Gender ratio is defined as the ratio of male participants over the total number of participants. <emph>SD</emph>s marked NA reflect a single <emph>ES</emph> for that category.</item> <item>14 Abbreviation: PA, Phonological Awareness.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0149247649-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149247649-22">Overall effectiveness</hd> <p>The central purpose of this study was to use meta‐analytic procedures to aggregate data across multiple studies of paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions to draw conclusions about their effectiveness. The first research question concerned the overall effectiveness of paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions. Although the mean overall effect size (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.55) was fairly large when placed in the context of other meta‐analytic studies of reading interventions (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007; Wanzek et al., 2013), this result must be interpreted with caution for two reasons. The first involves the limited number of studies that met the inclusion criteria. It is possible that because a small number of studies was included in the meta‐analysis, the mean overall <emph>ES</emph> may have been inflated. This presumed inflation effect also may have affected the effect sizes associated with the other outcome variables. The second reason involves the high <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> value associated with the mean overall effect size (<emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.59). This high value indicated a significant heterogeneity among the studies included in the meta‐analysis. A possible explanation for this may be that the participants and treatments involved in each study were too different to be compared. This result prevents the overall mean <emph>ES</emph> from being interpreted at face value. To find practical meaning in the results, moderator variables such as effective outcomes, grade level, ethnicity, and gender needed to be explored.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-23">Most effective areas</hd> <p>The second research question asked, in which areas of reading intervention are paraprofessionals most effective? The areas of decoding (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.61; <emph>Q</emph> = 2.38; <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> = −0.06) and spelling (<emph>ES</emph> = 0.86; <emph>Q</emph> = 5.99; <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.50) seem to be where paraprofessionals are most effective because these were the only outcomes that met the assumption of homogeneity of variance. As is the case with the overall mean effect, these outcome <emph>ES</emph>s must be interpreted with caution due to issues associated with inflation. Although the results of this meta‐analysis may not have immediate implications for practice, the findings indicate that future research should assess outcomes associated with paraprofessional implementation of evidence‐based interventions that provide direct explicit instruction in the areas of decoding and spelling.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-24">Emerging patterns</hd> <p>When outcome effects were further moderated by grade level, ethnicity, and gender, three interesting patterns emerged. As previously mentioned, these patterns do not have explanatory power on their own and do not have straightforward implications for practice. However, these patterns do provide insights into the state of this area of research and a vision for where it may go in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-25">Grade level</hd> <p>The first pattern that was observed occurred when the outcome effects were moderated by grade level. There was an overall trend of growing improvement starting in preschool and peaking in first grade. In second grade, <emph>ES</emph>s dropped across outcomes. This pattern suggests two questions that future research may be able to answer. First, does this trend continue beyond second grade? As there were no studies that met inclusion criteria for the current meta‐analysis that implemented interventions to students beyond second grade, follow up research that focuses on paraprofessional‐implemented interventions for older grades may provide more insight. A second question that could be answered by future research is: if this pattern can be replicated, is there an indication of second grade stagnation? Because posttest scores were collected toward the end of the school year in each study, the drop off may be indicative of the so‐called "third‐grade slump" (Caldwell, 1987), in which the focus of the instruction shifts from constrained aspects of reading (e.g., phonological awareness and alphabetics) to unconstrained aspects such as vocabulary and comprehension. Students who do not achieve proficiency in the constrained aspects by the time this shift occurs often struggle. Another possible explanation is that these students cannot yet read with sufficient fluency and perhaps fall back as they encounter more complex words and word components. Wanzek et al. (2013) also documented lessened effectiveness of interventions implemented after the primary grades. Perhaps these findings, in conjunction with those of the current study, are indicative of the Matthew effect (Stanovich, 1986), where an achievement gap is formed between those who achieve this proficiency and those who do not. Conceivably, future research can investigate this phenomenon.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-26">Ethnic ratio</hd> <p>The second pattern was observed when outcome effects were moderated by ethnic ratio, defined as the proportion of ethnic minority students to the total number of students. Effects were highest both when the ratio was low and when it was high. This finding suggests two questions that may be answered by follow up research. First, how effective are paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions for minority students? Only two of the included studies (i.e., Ehri et al., 2007; Vadasy & Sanders, 2010) explicitly targeted minority students. Additionally, some of the studies regarded minority students as a homogeneous group. A second question that may be addressed by future research involves paraprofessionals and their cultural and linguistic connections to the communities in which they live. According to Darling‐Hammond (1998), paraprofessionals are often bilingual and are fairly involved in the communities in which they work. This assumption should be empirically evaluated through additional reading intervention research.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-27">Gender ratio</hd> <p>The third pattern emerged when effects were moderated by gender ratio. Gender ratio was defined in this study as the proportion of male students to the total number of students. As the number of males grew, outcome effects increased. This finding points out two avenues for future research. First, such research should strive to include more female students in paraprofessional‐implemented reading intervention studies. As noted, 62% of participants across the nine studies were male, and such a disproportionate ratio makes it difficult to generalize findings. A second way this finding may inform future research is to investigate how a possible overidentification of male students with reading difficulties (Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990) impacts reading intervention outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-28">Limitations</hd> <p>Several limitations of the current study should be noted to frame the interpretation of the results and inform future research. The first involves the heterogeneity of the included studies and a possible inflation of the effect sizes. Cochran's <emph>Q</emph> test (Cooper, 1998) indicated that the overall mean effect and many of the outcome effects did not meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance. High <emph>I</emph><sups>2</sups> values suggested that much of the variability in treatment effects were due to real differences in the population sample across the included studies. Although this finding may have indicated a need to explore additional moderator variables, interpretations were still limited by the low number of studies that met inclusion criteria, which may have inflated effect sizes.</p> <p>A second limitation involves the studies that met inclusion criteria. Many of the included studies were conducted by the same research team that utilized similar methods and population samples across studies. It is possible that inclusion of such studies may have affected the generalizability of the meta‐analytic findings. All of the studies were conducted in settings with researcher training and support, which also limits the "real world" implications of the current meta‐analysis. Additionally, studies had to be searchable on the internet to meet criteria. Although the intention was to consider the ease of article accessibility for practitioners, the possibility exists that we excluded relevant studies that were either not on the internet or not published (i.e., the common "file drawer" complaint about meta‐analysis). Along these lines, we acknowledge that the reported meta‐analysis did not strictly adhere to the standards reported in the American Psychological Association's <emph>Meta‐Analysis Reporting Standards</emph> (MARS; American Psychological Association, 2010), which we encourage future researchers to consult and use.</p> <p>A third limitation regards the data set and moderator variables. The included studies did not report relevant demographic variables such as socioeconomic status or oral language of the students, which limits the types of analyses that can be conducted. Variables involving ethnicity were also inadequately reported, which makes it difficult to generalize findings to minority populations. The results may have also been influenced by an uneven proportion of male‐to‐female participants. All of these limitations seemingly could be addressed as the literature base associated with paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions is broadened and extended in the future. Upcoming research on paraprofessional‐implemented reading intervention should focus on the degree to which they are trained, their implement intervention with fidelity, and the efficaciousness of these interventions on literacy outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-29">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>At the outset, a major intention was for the meta‐analytic findings to provide meaningful implications to inform practice but, due to limitations involving homogeneity of variance and a possible inflation of effect sizes, results clearly need to be interpreted with caution. That said, the results of this meta‐analysis can provide directions for future research. The most promising findings indicated a need to further investigate paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions that target decoding and spelling skills. Should evidence support this practice, paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions may provide supplemental support that remedies problems with intervention implementation. Other patterns that emerged from the results involving grade level, ethnic minority, and gender effects highlight other gaps and limitations in the literature. All findings point to what may be the current study's most significant conclusion: the research base surrounding paraprofessional‐implemented reading interventions needs to be expanded. Once the literature becomes more developed and robust, a follow‐up meta‐analysis may be conducted to provide more meaningful practice implications to an area of service delivery that currently shows great promise.</p> <hd id="AN0149247649-30">CONFLICT OF INTERESTS</hd> <p>The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.</p> <ref id="AN0149247649-31"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> *Studies denoted by an asterisk (*) were included in the meta‐analysis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2010). Meta‐analysis reporting standards (MARS). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., pp. 251 – 252). Washington, DC : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> * Bingham, G., Hall‐Kenyon, K., & Culatta, B. (2010). Systematic and engaging early literacy: Examining the effects of paraprofessional implemented early literacy instruction. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32 (1), 38 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740109340796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, K., Morris, D., & Fields, M. (2005). Intervention after Grade 1: Serving increased numbers of struggling readers effectively. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (1), 61 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3701_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (5), 431 – 443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Caldwell, B. (1987). Staying ahead: The challenge of third‐grade slump. Special report: Early childhood education. Principal, 66 (5), 10 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Catts. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39 (5), 317 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Catts, H., Corcoran Nielsen, D., Sittner Bridges, M., & Liu, Y.‐S. (2016). Early Identification of Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49 (5), 451 – 465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414556121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Causton‐Theoharis, J., Giangreco, M., Doyle, M., & Vadasy, P. (2007). Paraprofessionals: The "sou‐chefs" of literacy instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (1), 56 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990704000107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783?casa_token=9Ofvgwa4864AAAAA:wnoy9KGYIMDFRr7YCCtEMaCQ1z9S7-KG0usrGiDGLPo8ROPgxdeF6VENSYYJ0AwP9VK1hxp2juIaQ</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A., Dougherty, S. M., Leonar, K., Koriakin, T., Gage, N. A., ... & Gillis, M. (2018). Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within an MTSS or RTI reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity design. Exceptional Children, 84 (4), 350 – 367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918772791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L. (1998). How can we ensure a caring, competent, qualified teacher for every child? In National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. Paper presented at the American Federation of Teachers/National Education Association Joint Conference, Washington, DC (Vol. 22, p. 2008).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Ehri, L., Dreyer, L., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: An effective tutoring intervention model for language‐minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (2), 414 – 448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fien, H., Smith, J. L. M., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., & Nelson, N. J. (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (6), 602 – 621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414521664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers across texts: The complete view of reading (CVR i). Remedial and Special Education, 39 (5), 274 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR : Institute for the Development of Education Achievement. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://dibels.uoregon.edu/">http://dibels.uoregon.edu/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedges, L. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6 (2), 107 – 128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, (21), 1539 – 1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Invernizzi, M., Meier, J. D., Swank, L., & Juel, C. (2003). Phonological awareness literacy screening for kindergarten (PALS‐K). Technical reference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, E., Larsen, R., Sudweeks, R. R., Young, R., & Gibb, G. S. (2018). Evaluating paraeducator‐led reading interventions in elementary school: A multi‐cutoff regression‐discontinuity analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11 (4), 507 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1481164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 437 – 447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G. (2015). Developmental, component‐based model of reading fluency: An investigation of predictors of word‐reading fluency, text‐reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (4), 459 – 481. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Lane, K., Fletcher, T., Carter, E., Dejud, C., & DeLorenzo, J. (2007). Paraprofessional‐led phonological awareness training with youngsters at risk for reading and behavioral concerns. Remedial and Special Education, 28 (5), 266 – 276. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325070280050201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). TOPEL: Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX : Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon, G., Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Torgesen, J., Wood, F., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities, Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259 – 287). Washington, DC : Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454636.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacGinitie, W. H. (1989). Gates‐MacGinitie reading tests. Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical manual. Woodcock‐Johnson III, Itasca, IL : Riverside Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel (US), & National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (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: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC : National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Nelson, J., Sanders, E., & Gonzalez, J. (2009). The efficacy of supplemental early literacy instruction by community‐based tutors for preschoolers enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3 (1), 1 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903381031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ozernov‐Palchik, O., Norton, E. S., Sideridis, G., Beach, S. D., Wolf, M., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Gaab, N. (2017). Longitudinal stability of pre‐reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: Implications for early screening and theories of reading. Developmental Science, 20 (5), e12471. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15 (1), 43 – 54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Not just speed reading: Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency for predicting high‐stakes third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 343 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samson, J. F., Hines, S. J., & Li, K. (2015). Effective use of paraprofessionals as early intervention reading tutors in K‐3. Mentoring & Tutoring, Partnership in Learning, 23 (2), 164 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2015.1049014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4‐12, 1914‐2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756 – 800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 59 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606300106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 360 – 407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50 (5), 576 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, D., Fletcher, J., & Escobar, M. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264 (8), 998 – 1002. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03450080084036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1994). TOPA: Test of Phonological Awareness. Austin, TX : Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Title I paraprofessionals: Non‐regulatory guidance. Washington DC : Author. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/fedprograms/dl/ti%5fa%5fregsandguidance%5fpara030104.pdf">http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/fedprograms/dl/ti%5fa%5fregsandguidance%5fpara030104.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Vadasy, P., & Sanders, E. (2009). Supplemental fluency intervention and determinants of reading outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (5), 383 – 425. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903162894</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Vadasy, P., & Sanders, E. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics‐based instruction for low‐skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (4), 786 – 803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Vadasy, P., Sanders, E., & Peyton, J. (2006). Code‐oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraprofessional implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (3), 508 – 528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Vadasy, P., Sanders, E., & Tudor, S. (2007). Effectiveness of paraprofessional‐supplemented individual instruction: Beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (6), 508 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400060301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wexler, J., Vaughn, M. G., & Fall, A. (2015). High school students with reading comprehension difficulties: Results of a randomized control trial of a two‐year reading intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (5), 546 – 558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413515511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Yurick, A., Cartledge, G., Kourea, L., & Keyes, S. (2012). Reducing reading failure for kindergarten urban students: A study of early literacy instruction, treatment quality, and treatment duration. Remedial and Special Education, 33 (2), 89 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510365359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., & Pearson, N. A. (1999). CTOPP‐2: Comprehensive test of phonological processing–second edition. Austin, TX : Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (6), 612 – 624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Research‐based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36 (4), 541 – 561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 (2), 126 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Metz, K., Murray, C., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after Grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83 (2), 163 – 195. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313477212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). Gray oral reading tests: GORT‐3. Austin, TX : Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide range achievement test (WRAT4). Lutz, FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests‐revised. Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brian T. Jones; William P. Erchul and Cathleen A. Geraghty</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1287330
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Supplemental Reading Interventions Implemented by Paraprofessionals: A Meta-Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jones%2C+Brian+T%2E%22">Jones, Brian T.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8813-4024">0000-0002-8813-4024</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erchul%2C+William+P%2E%22">Erchul, William P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-0746">0000-0002-1412-0746</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Geraghty%2C+Cathleen+A%2E%22">Geraghty, Cathleen A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Apr 2021 58(4):723-741.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Supplementary+Education%22">Supplementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Paraprofessional+School+Personnel%22">Paraprofessional School Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Effect+Size%22">Effect Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22427
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Preventative and intensive reading intervention can be administered to at-risk students in a systematic way to help facilitate gains on literacy outcomes. Despite this fact, there are clear barriers to implementation. One solution may be to use paraprofessionals to provide supplemental reading instruction. This study employed meta-analytic procedures to address two questions: (a) what is the overall effectiveness of paraprofessionals as implementers of reading interventions? and (b) in which areas are paraprofessionals most effective? A literature search of research from 2001 to 2017 yielded 76 studies. Nine studies meeting a priori inclusion criteria were coded for demographic information and six common reading outcomes. The mean ES across outcomes was 0.55, and spelling and decoding emerged as areas to inform future research. Although these meta-analytic findings must be interpreted with caution due to issues of sample size and heterogeneity of variance, involving paraprofessionals as reading interventionists appears to be a highly promising strategy.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1287330
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1287330
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22427
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 723
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Supplementary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Paraprofessional School Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Effect Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spelling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Supplemental Reading Interventions Implemented by Paraprofessionals: A Meta-Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jones, Brian T.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erchul, William P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Geraghty, Cathleen A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1