Maintaining the Power of Oneon-One in a Group of Four:
Early Steps Quads
Research Question: Readers
Do 1:1 and 1:4 intervention
formats provide differential
benefits to struggling readers?
 Is 1-on-4 grouping format as
effective as 1-on-1 for improving
the performance of struggling
readers?

Research Question: Educators

Can non-certified paraprofessionals
deliver 1:4 reading intervention as
effectively as certified teacher
when supervised by an
intervention specialist?
Methods: Readers






N = 214
14 Title 1 and non-Title 1 schools
Public: rural & urban
Grade 1
Diverse SES, ethnicity, achievement
Randomly assigned to 1-on-1 or quad
Methods: Educators





N = 47
Classroom teachers, literacy coaches,
paraprofessionals, UURC staff
Each pre-certified in Early Steps
Each tutored 1:1 and 1:4
Each was observed 7 times over year
Methods: Intervention


45 minute lessons
80 lessons over year’s time
Methods: Pre-Post Measures

Criterion-referenced




Word recognition automaticity (Flash)
Passage reading level (RLA)
Spelling
Norm-referenced



Woodcock Word Attack (WRMT-WA)
Woodcock Passage Comp. (WRMT-PC)
DIBELS (NWF-CLS, NWF-WWR, ORF)
Methods: RLA Criteria
Mid GK
End GK
Early G1
Mid G1
End G1
Mid G2
End G2
Early G3
Mid G3
End G3
Acc.
(%)
Rate
(wpm)
6
40
85
90
90
93
93
93
95
95
0
15
20
30
40
65
90
80
90
110
Methods: Analyses

3-Level HLM

School, Tutor, Student


Regression analysis


Certified/Non – Level-2 Variable
Maximum likelihood (not OLS)
Model reduction method



Run full model w/ all covariates
Remove non-significant covariates
Retain variables of interest
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
RLA
Single
Quad
Baseline
M
RLA (SD)
.61
(.37)
.81
(.23)
Exit
M
RLA (SD)
1.63
(.39)
1.78
(.45)
Average
M
Gain (SD)
1.02
(.43)
.97
(.42)
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
RLA
% Gain
< 0.5
Single
11.6%
Quad
14.6%
≥ 1.0
62.8%
64.9%
≥ 2.0
2.3%
3.5%
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post RLA

Intercept 1.300
SE
p
.097
.000
Pretest RLA Score .558
.107
.000
Certified/Non -.023
.072
.749
Group/Single .032
.067
.624
Variable
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .259
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
Flash
Single
Quad
Baseline
M
Flash (SD)
.03
(.20)
.11
(.36)
Exit
M
Flash (SD)
1.69
(.70)
1.89
(.70)
Average
M
Gain (SD)
1.65
(.67)
1.78
(.66)
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post Flash

Intercept 1.674
SE
p
.111
.000
Pretest Flash Score .723
.135
.000
Certified/Non .005
.113
.962
Group/Single .133
.102
.193
Variable
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .000
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
Spelling (DSA)
Single
Quad
M
Baseline
Spelling (SD)
18.21
(7.40)
22.27
(4.42)
M
Exit
Spelling (SD)
33.14
(3.46)
34.73
(3.65)
14.93
12.46
Gain
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post Spelling
SE

Intercept 29.535 1.854
Variable
Pretest Spelling Score
p
.000
.306
.049
.000
Pretest RLA Score 2.443
.861
.005
Number of Sessions -.038
.021
.063
Certified/Non -.576
.530
.283
Group/Single -.123
.535
.818
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .011
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .009
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
WRMT Word Attack
Single
Quad
Baseline
M
Word Attack (SD)
[GE]
3.30
(3.64)
[1.3]
4.88
(3.64)
[1.3]
Exit
M
Word Attack (SD)
[GE]
13.86
(7.65)
[2.5]
17.09
(7.17)
[3.0]
1.2
1.7
Gain
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post WRMT Word Attack
SE

Intercept 10.360 1.071
Variable
Pretest Word Attack Score 1.051
p
.000
.115
.000
.373
.842
.660
Group/Single 1.539
1.052
.145
Certified/Non
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .415
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
WRMT Passage Comprehension
Single
Quad
Baseline
M
Passage (SD)
Comp. [GE]
2.63
(3.00)
[K.6]
3.51
(2.71)
[K.7]
Exit
M
Passage (SD)
Comp. [GE]
15.23
(7.42)
[1.6]
17.91
(6.46)
[1.8]
1.0
1.1
Gain
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post Passage Comprehension
SE

Intercept 10.492 1.424
Variable
Pretest Passage Comp. Score
p
.000
.752
.155
.000
Pretest RLA Score 4.007
1.655
.016
Certified/Non
.872
.880
.328
Group/Single 1.274
1.045
.328
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .303
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .152
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
DIBELS CLS (Correct Letter Sounds)
Single
Quad
Baseline
M
DIBELS CLS (SD)
14.07
(10.62)
17.47
(12.86)
Exit
M
DIBELS CLS (SD)
50.67
(21.86)
63.48
(26.91)
36.60
46.01
Gain
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post DIBELS Correct Letter Sounds
SE
p

Intercept 31.285 17.138 .091
Variable
Number of Sessions
.006
.200
.976
# of Sessions * Certified/Non
.706
.276
.012
Certified/Non -48.067 22.331 .037
Pretest CLS Score
1.019
.194
.000
Group/Single
5.952
4.376
.176
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) > .500
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .037
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
DIBELS WWR (Whole Words Read)
Single
Quad
M
Baseline
DIBELS WWR (SD)
.47
(1.93)
.96
(4.27)
M
Exit
DIBELS WWR (SD)
10.67
(9.53)
16.88
(11.12)
10.20
15.92
Gain
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post DIBELS Whole Words Read
SE

Intercept -14.260 5.053
Variable
p
.015
Number of Sessions
.199
.058
.001
Certified/Non
4.361
1.565
.008
Pretest CLS Score
.473
.084
.000
Pretest WWR Score
.059
.178
.741
Group/Single
2.640
1.822
.149
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .345
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) > .500
Singleton vs. Quad Performance on
DIBELS ORF(Oral Reading Fluency)
Exit
M
DIBELS ORF (SD)
Single
Quad
33.70
(18.54)
40.32
(20.02)
Reduced Model HLM-3 Coefficients for
Post DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
SE

Intercept 18.572 4.374
.001
Pretest RLA Score 23.960 4.651
.000
Variable
p
Certified/Non 1.713
3.229
.598
Group/Single 1.868
2.844
.512
c2 p-value for Level-2 R (Tutor Effect) = .001
c2 p-value for Level-3 U (School Effect) = .032
Discussion: Readers


Replicates Vaughn et al. 2006
No advantage for 1:1 group size in
comparison to 1:4 (quads)
Discussion: Educators


Paraprofessionals were able to deliver
quad reading intervention as effectively
…when supervised by an intervention
specialist
Implications for Ed Practice


Growing evidence that 1:4 is an
effective grouping format for
intervention
more efficient use of resources allows
more students to receive intervention
Implications for Ed Practice

Trained, supervised paraprofessionals
can effectively extend the reach of
classroom teacher and reading
specialists in helping struggling readers
become more successful
Implications for Ed Practice


>1 group size requires management
skill on part of educator
Immutable benefits of 1:1 grouping



Professional development opportunity to
focus solely on reading development
Students who “don’t fit” a group
Educators who “don’t fit” with groups
Future Research

Economies of Scale - 1:4 vs. 1:6
advantage?