READ CORE and READ CORE PLUS INTERVENTION
BANGLADESH BASELINE
September 2015
Silvia Diazgranados
Harvard University
Akter Hossain
Liana Gertsch
Jarret Guajardo
Save the Children
Acknowledgements to Sayed Mohammed, Akidul Islam, Parvin Shahana and the team of enumerators
for their support in the data collection.
Background and Context
Bangladesh has made dramatic strides in improving access to basic education, driven by
successful partnerships among government, donors and NGOs. Despite unprecedented gains in
education access, there is a crisis in early grade learning. The 2008 National Assessment Survey
(NAS) found only 12% of 3rd grade students and 14% of 5th grade students scored 80% of higher in
Bangla competencies, including vocabulary, writing and reading comprehension. Research in
Bangladesh shows a host of school related challenges, including lack of teacher preparation, lack of
well-designed reading materials for children in schools and homes, limited contact hours in schools,
limited opportunities to practice reading, limited community engagement and low literacy among
parents, no culture of reading for pleasure, lack of interventions for children struggling to learn, etc.
To address these problems and with the aim of improving reading competencies in children,
Save the Children created the Reading Enhancement for Advancing Development (READ) program
in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh and with support from the US Agency for
International Development (USAID).
READ Core and READ Core Plus
READ incorporates evidence-based practices that emphasize capacity and sustainability,
focusing on four areas of intervention: 1) teacher education and continuous professional
development; 2) reading assessment; 3) increased availability of reading material, and 4) increased
opportunities in the community to read and to provide support to beginning readers by those outside
the school walls. Specifically, the READ model provides participating schools with state-of-the-art
strategies to teach and assess key reading skills, such as letter knowledge, phonemic awareness,
vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. This year, 1465 participating schools (805 Government
Public Schools (GPS) and 660 Newly Nationalized Public Schools (NNPS) received a READ Core
package that includes:

Teacher training on Early Grade Reading Instruction

Teacher training on Early Grade Classroom Diagnostic and Formative Assessment

Administrators (Head teacher, Upazila Education Officers (UEO), Upazila Resource Centre
(URC) and Assistant Upazila Educatior Officers (AUEO)) training on academic supervision.

Teachers´ preparation for Education Quality Improvement: In order to improve the quality of
teachers’ instruction, good practices inside the class room are captured through a film and
shared with teachers. Every partner organization films two teachers three times in a year. In
total 14 teacher of 7 division will be filmed three times in a year and the videos will be used
in trainings and forums.

School-based book bank: READ supplied 70 titles and one book stand for all schools. The
book stands are designed to display books and bring them within easy reach of children. The
books are visible through transparent pockets so that children will be attracted to them, according to
their diverse interests. Books are color-coded according to reading level so that children can choose
books according to their reading skill. Each classes have a specific time to receive and read book from
the book corner. Book captains are managing the book corner in each school.

SMC Read Orientation

Reading Sessions for Parents: Mothers’ gather at school to receive IAT report card, giving
emphasis on parents support at home
Additionally, out of 805 GPS, 80 participating schools were randomly selected to receive the
READ Core Plus Package, so that children in those schools will benefit from all of the above, plus
the following:

Community-based book bank: To ensure children´s access to ample and diverse reading
materials appropriate to their level of reading outside of school, each community is awarded with
a book packet of 70 books which are specifically designed to help them develop their literacy.
Specifically, the book bank has 70 illustrated books, 2 alphabet primers, 2 language games, and
guidelines on how to read for children and how to read with children. Parents and students have
access to the book bank and children are able to take one book for a week. CLV oversee
community book banks and use a log to monitor book use and return.

Reading Camp: Reading camps provide children with the chance to participate in fun, engaging
literacy activities outside of the school environment. Two reading camps are established within
each catchment area. Two groups comprising 1st and 2nd grade students will participate in the
reading camps. Each reading camp provides 30 first and second grade children within the 80
participating sites with the opportunity to attend once per week, for 8 months of the year to (3032 sessions). Each camp is a 90 minute session where two CLV engage children in activities
where they can practice their literacy skills through games, lecture, activities and story-telling.
Specifically, during each session, children: 1) Sign their name, sing a song and discuss the
agenda, 2) participate in story-telling (15-20 minutes), 3) listen to scripted lectures (30-35
minutes) that have been designed to promote phonemic awareness (7 sessions), letter knowledge
(2 sessions) vocabulary (3 sessions), fluency (4 sessions) and comprehension (4 sessions), 4)
practice what they learned (15 minutes), and 5) respond to questions to assess what they learned
(10 minutes). Before departing, they can choose to borrow a book from the book bank to read
with a Reading Buddy at the end of the session.

Reading buddies: In order to provide support and individualized attention to struggling students
who are falling behind and to increase the habit of reading for pleasure, Community Literacy
Volunteers (CLVs) match pairs of children who live close by but have different levels of literacy
skills to have competent readers supporting beginning readers. Older buddies are trained on how
to read to the younger children, and have high levels of fluency and reading comprehension. The
younger reader is encouraged to borrow books from the book bank and read them together with
his or her ‘Buddy’ who is more advanced. Books are distributed at the reading camp, but the
actual reading takes places at the community or at home.

Parent workshops: Parents are invited to awareness sessions in support of reading where they
learn concrete ideas about how to improve the language development and literacy of their
children in their daily activities and how to establish a reading culture at home. Workshops are
conducted once a month for seven months. Each 60-90 minute workshop includes 20-30 parents
of students targeted at the reading camp.
All READ Core Plus activities are implemented by Community Literacy Volunteers (CLV),
who receive a small monthly compensation for their work. CLVs attend a two-day long training
before initiation of activities, which are conducted by field officers from PNGO, and then a refresher
training after the first year of implementation.
READ Core Plus uses a cascade model to conduct trainings, where 14 Technical officers and
field officers from the PNGO's attend a Train the Trainers Training conducted by Senior Technical
Officers (STO), after which they proceed to conduct their own trainings for groups of 25-30 CLVs.
All trainings follow the same training manual, which introduces READ Core Plus to the community,
and provides information about the goals, routines, materials and activities of the program, with a
focus on the promotion of literacy skills. Trainings include demonstrations, role plays and
discussions about their roles and responsibilities.
Trainings are followed by on-site visits once a month, conducted by Technical Officers
(TOs) and Field Officers, who monitor the program and give support to CLV in their work. TOs and
Field Officers work for PNGO’s, have professional degrees and themselves attend a number of
trainings that prepare them in their roles as coaches of the CLVs. TOs are responsible to supervise
three Field Officers, and Field Officers provide support to CLVs in two READ Camps. During their
visits, Field Officers monitor sessions, observe lessons to ensure proper implementation of the
program. TOs meet with field officers once a month to provide them guidance with their work.
Finally, each READ community program has a Management Committee comprised of
parents and community members, who provide a regular venue for the program and assistance to the
CLVs, including maintenance of materials, etc. Table 1 provides a comparison of the supports
provided by READ and READ Core Plus.
Table 1. Resources and Activities of the READ Core and READ Core Plus models
Supports
READ CORE
READ CORE
PLUS
Teacher Trainings
X
X
School Management Committee
X
X
Academic supervision for Bangla
X
X
Monthly Monitoring and Evaluation
X
X
Establishment of print reach
X
X
X
X
environment
IAT Conduction
Community Volunteers Trainings
X
Reading Camp and storytelling
X
Reading Buddies
X
Parent reading-awareness workshops
X
Community Book Bank
X
CLV Monitoring and Evaluation
X
The Present Study: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Clustered Evaluation
The present study uses a multi-site randomized controlled clustered evaluation to measure the
value-added impact of the READ Core Plus model on children, by comparing it to the READ Core
model. Specifically, our study aims to answer the following research questions:
At baseline

Are there statistically significant differences in the observable characteristics of children in
the treatment (READ Core Plus) and control (READ Core) groups before initiation of
activities?

What are children's reading skills by treatment and District, before initiation of activities?
At post-test

Does receiving an offer to attend READ Core Plus improve students’ literacy skills as
compared to children who only received an offer to attend READ Core?1

Does participating in READ Core Plus improve the literacy skills of students as compared to
those who participate in READ Core?2
Method
Participants and Sample
Program participants are children in first, second and third grade who are at high risk of
negative educational outcomes in Bangladesh. All children are benefiting from the READ Core
intervention. Within the 805 schools that are receiving READ Core, 80 schools were randomly
selected to benefit from the READ Core Plus model. The communities within the catchment area of
a READ Core Plus will obtain additional supports such as weekly reading circles, a community book
bank, and supplemental community-based reading activities. Children attending schools that were
1
2
Intent to Treat Analysis
Treatment on the Treated Analysis
randomly selected to receive the READ Core Plus model are in the treatment group, and children
attending schools that only receive the READ Core model are in the control group.
To select the sample of our study, we first randomly chose 70 READ Core Plus schools from
among the 80 that are receiving the intervention. For each treatment school, we then located a GPS
receiving READ Core within the same Upazila, to be used as a control group. Within each selected
site, we then proceeded to randomly select 20 first grade students to participate in the study.
Therefore, our study sample is comprised by 2800 first grade children in 140 GPS schools: 1400
grade students in 70 schools receiving the READ Core Package, and 1400 students in 70 schools
receiving the READ Core Plus Package. Teachers and Head Teachers were also contacted in each
participant school, for an approximate total of 140 adult educators. Figure 1 illustrates how the
READ study sample was drawn from the population of READ.
First, second and third
grade students in GPS
and NNPS Bangladesh
Population
Program Participants
Point of
randomization
Study Participants
805 GPS Schools
660 NNPS
READ CORE
READ CORE+
725 GPS
80 GPS
1283 grade-1 Children
within 70 READ CORE
schools (Control)
1221 grade-1 Children
within 70 READ CORE+
Schools (Intervention)
Figure 1. Population, READ and READ Core Plus program participants and study sample.
Table 2 contains a description of students within different participating districts by treatment
status and sex.
Table 2. Study sample by Treatment Status, Sex and District
Baseline Sample
Treatment: READ
Control: READ Core
Treatment Status
Core Plus
Total
District / Sex
Male
Female
Male
Female
Barisal
108
107
93
91
399
Cox's Bazar
60
64
44
51
219
Dhaka
110
131
120
115
476
Khulna
136
124
120
138
518
Rangpur
124
127
120
122
493
Sylhet
97
95
106
101
399
Total
635
648
603
618
2504
Procedure
Research assistants provided participants with written and verbal information about the study
and the nature of the tests and questionnaires that they would be answering. Parents and children
were informed that participation was voluntary and that their willingness of unwillingness to
participate would not affect their relationship with the school. In May and June of 2015, before
initiation of activities, research assistants visited selected sites and met individually with students
who agreed to participate to administer the background information questionnaire and a literacy test
for up to one hour of their time. Head Teachers filled out a questionnaire with information about the
school and the community in which the school is located, for up to 15 minutes of their time.
Teachers filled out a questionnaire with information about students' attendance, social skills and
school engagement, for about one hour of their time. Participants provided their names as they
normally do during tests. Their responses were transferred to a digital format, which contains their
ID number. A key code connects subject’s data to their identity. Participants did not receive any
payment for their participation in the study.
Measures
Predictors
Treatment is the key exogenous predictor of the question of interest, a dummy variable that
indicates whether children are in a school that was randomly assigned to be part of the treatment
(READ Core Plus =1) or control (READ Core=0) groups.
Outcomes
Alphabet_Knowledge is a continuous individual level variable that reflects the sum of the number of
letters/sounds that children are able to identify from the Bangla alphabet. (See Figure 2 in Appendix)
Most_Used_Words is a continuous individual level variable that reflects the percentage of words
read aloud correctly from a list of 20 words that are familiar to children (See Figure 3 in Appendix).
Phonemic_Awarenessis an individual continuous level variable that reflects the percentage of similar
beginning sounds and rhyming words that children are able to read correctly from a list of 20 (See
Figure 4 in Appendix). Vocabulary is an individual level variable that reflects the percentage of
words that children are able to retrieve correctly when prompted by a question or an image (See
Figure 5 in Appendix). Reader is an individual-level dummy variable that reflects whether a child is
an independent reader, defined as the ability to read 5 words correctly within the first 30 seconds of
a subtest (See Figure 6 in Appendix). Fluency is an individual level continuous variable that reflects
the number of words that children who are independent readers are able to read correctly in a minute
using a 59-word connected text (See Figure 7 in Appendix). Accuracy is an individual level
continuous variable that reflects the percentage of words that children who are independent readers
are able read correctly in a 59-word connected text (See Figure 8 in Appendix). Reading
comprehension is an individual level variable that reflects the number of comprehension questions
(out of 10) that children who are independent readers are able to answer correctly after reading a
passage (See Figure 10 in Appendix). Reading_with_Comprehension is a categorical variable that
reflects the percentage of children who are 1) readers, 2) readers able to answer correctly more than
50% of reading comprehension questions, 3) readers who are able to answer more than 80% of
reading comprehension questions correctly. Social_Strengths is an individual continuous level
variable that describes teachers' perceptions of children’s prosocial skills, based on their answers to
some items taken from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997).
School_Engagement is an individual continuous level variable that reflects students’ emotional and
behavioral signs of engagement and disaffection towards school, as reported by teachers based on
the School Engagement vs. Disaffection scale (Furrer & Skinner, 2003. Table 2 contains a summary
of the measures of our outcomes of interest, specifying their dimensions of interest, the instruments
used to collect the data, the number of items and range of each measure, the reliability estimates in
the pre-test sample, the respondents and the original instrument from which the items used were
taken. Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, number of items and Cronbach's alpha of key
outcomes of interest
Table 3. Description of variable, number of subjects, means, standard deviations and Cronbach's
alpha of Key Outcomes of Interest
Literacy Outcome
Description
Mean
SD
Alpha
Alphabet knowledge
Number of letters/sounds known of 50
31.62
18.06
0.98
Most Used Words
Percentage of words read aloud correctly
from the most frequently used words (out of
20)
0.32
0.38
0.97
Phonemic Awareness
Percentage of similar Beginning words read
correctly (out of 20)
0.36
0.24
0.87
Vocabulary
Percentage of words retrieved correctly
when shown images (out of 15)
0.7
0.23
0.83
Reader
A child able to read the oral reading passage
independently, defined as reading at least
five words correctly in the first 30 seconds of
the sub-test.
0.16
0.36
n/a
Fluency
Percentage of number of words read
correctly per minute in a 59-word connected
text. (readers only)
17.04
16.32
n/a
0.87
0.1
n/a
0.57
0.25
0.94
Accuracy
Reading Comprehension
Percentage of words in an 59-word
connected text read correctly (readers only)
Percentage of comprehension questions (of
5) answered correctly after reading a text
read aloud (readers only)
Covariates
Age is a continuous variable that reflects that students' age in years (mean=6.74, sd=.97).
Female is a dummy variable which indicates whether the participant is a girl (1) or a boy (0)
(mean=.5, sd=.5). Home_Materials reflects the sum of 8 dummy variables that indicate whether the
family has textbooks, magazines, newspapers, coloring books, children books, religious books,
comics or internet at the house (mean=.15, sd=.49). SES is an exogenous predictor of socioeconomic status which reflects the sum of eleven dummy variables that indicate whether families
have electric appliances such as TV, radio, refrigerator, and other possessions such as land, books
and bicycles (mean=4.87, sd=1.88). ECD is a dummy variable that indicates whether children
attended an early childhood education program (1) or not (0) (mean=.51, sd=.49). DistrictID is a
vector of six dummy variables that indicate whether the school is located in Dhaka (reference
category), Barisal, Khulna, Sylhet, Cox's Bazar or Rangpur. School_ID is a categorical variable that
identifies all 140 participating schools.
Analytic methods
In order to answer our first research question and estimate whether there are statistically
significant differences in a set of characteristics that were observed after randomization took place,
but before initiation of activities, we used OLS regression estimates that adjusted for clustering at the
school level to account for nesting of children within schools. The purpose was to determine if
groups are balanced in a series of observable characteristics, but not if treatment has an effect on
these variables. In fact, the data was collected before initiation of activities and therefore, the
treatment could not have any effect on any outcome. Equation 1 describes the formula used for these
analyses:
(1) Outcomeis=Bois + B1(TREATMENTis) + Ɛi+ Us
Outcome represents a set of variables that measure background characteristics such as age,
gender, SES, ECD, afterschool location, supervision. Treatment reflects whether students are in the
READ Core Plus (Treatment) or READ Core (control group). Level-1 and Level-2 population
residuals are represented by 𝜀𝑖𝑗 and 𝑢𝑗 (with the latter being a random school intercept), each
included in the model under the usual normal-theory assumptions. The parameter of interest is β1. If
the estimated value of this parameter is not statistically significant, we will be able to conclude that
there are not statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control
groups.
In order to answer our second research question and identify the average baseline literacy
skills of children by treatment status and district, after controlling for demographic information, we
used multi-level models with school random effects and district fixed effects. Given the presence of
floor and ceiling effects on some outcomes (e.g.: Alphabet knowledge, Most used words, Phonemic
awareness, Vocabulary, Accuracy, Fluency), we used Tobit regressions (Tobin, 1958) to censor the
data and obtain a more accurate average children performance for those outcomes. A typical
equation is given:
(2) Outcomeis=Bois + B1(TREATMENTis)+ αYis + γXis+ Ɛi + Us
Outcome is a continuous variable that measures an individual score in a given skill that was
observed before initiation of program activities:1) Alphabet knowledge; 2) Most Used Words; 3)
Phonemic Awareness, 4) Vocabulary, 5) Reader, 6) Accuracy, 7) Fluency, 8) Reading
Comprehension. Treatment reflects whether students are in the READ Core Plus (Treatment) or
READ Core (control group). YS is a vector of covariates that include gender, grade, SES, home
literacy and ECD attendance. Level-1 and Level-2 population residuals are represented by 𝜀𝑖𝑗 and 𝑢𝑗 .
The parameter of interest is β1. If the estimated value of this parameter is not statistically significant,
we will be able to conclude that at baseline, there are not statistically significant differences between
children in the treatment and control groups in our key literacy outcomes of interest.
Results
Research Question 1:
We conducted 50 regressions for a set of observable variables that were measured before
initiation of activities. All models adjust for clustering so the coefficients, t-tests and p-values are all
conditional on school effects.
Table 4 shows regression results for the differences in means between READ Core Plus and
READ Core for 22 exogenous variables. Exogenous variables are factors that cannot be changed by
the actions of the participants, such as age, gender, SES, teacher’s level of education, school size,
etc. Our analyses show that an alpha level of .05, there aren’t statistically significant differences
between the treatment and control groups in exogenous characteristics that were measured before the
implementation of the program.
Table 4. Regressions showing differences in means (READ Core Plus minus READ Core), t-tests
and constants for a set of exogenous variables that were measured at baseline
Dimension
Variable
Male
Age
Demographic info
SES
Home literacy
Teacher's age
Teachers' gender
Teacher
Teacher's experience
Characteristics
Teacher's professional
education
Head teacher's Gender
HeadTeacher
Head teachers' experience
School Resources
School Size
School Characteristics Number of teachers
Std-Teacher Ratio
Student Behavior
Attended ECD
Repeat Preschool
Student Academic
Trajectory
Repeat First
No Repetitions
At school
Reading materials
At the Community
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001
Treatment
(Difference
in means)
T-test
Constant
0
0.01
0.01
-0.03
0.01
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.19
0.18
0.07
0.34
1.92
0.26
0.5
6.69
4.9
1.07
2.97
1.31
10.22
-0.09
0.07
0.06
-0.3
-4
-0.53
0.54
-0.03
-0.01
-0.16
0.02
0
0.007
-0.08
-1.18
0.92
0.05
0.2
0.35
-1.57
0.7
-0.48
-0.47
-0.88
1.07
0.01
0.27
-0.6
5.66
1.67
9.45
3.6
51.22
5.81
8.96
3.22
0.52
0.14
0.12
0.73
1.09
3.57
Table 5 shows regression results from a set of 28 endogenous characteristics that were
measured before the implementation of the program. Endogenous variables are characteristics that
are determined by the actions of participants and therefore, are subject to change during the
implementation. For example, test scores, self-reports, school attendance, afterschool activities, etc.
Given that children were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, changes in endogenous
variables observed after the implementation of the program can be interpreted as program outcomes.
The results show that at an alpha level of .05 there aren’t statistically significant differences between
the treatment and control groups in endogenous characteristics before initiation of activities.
Table 5. Regressions showing differences in means (READ Core Plus minus READ Core), t-tests
and constants for a set of endogenous variables that were measured at baseline.
Dimension
Variable
Treatment
(Difference
in means)
T-test
Constant
Student Academic
Trajectory
Miss school last week
Study time
-0.03
-0.94
-0.9
-0.33
0.44
120.22
Reading materials
Home
0.04
1.17
0.13
-0.006
-0.01
0.009
-0.005
-0.002
-0.002
0.001
-0.38
-0.61
0.59
-0.35
-0.77
-0.26
0.22
0.09
0.82
0.12
0.12
0.005
0.95
0.32
0.003
1.18
0.003
-0.01
0.002
0.05
0.01
-0.06
0.08
-0.02
-0.08
-0.77
0.04
-1.78
0.93
0.42
0.19
-0.27
0.52
-0.26
-0.63
-0.52
-0.21
0.02
0.003
4.92
0.47
3.27
5.63
0.34
1.52
2.15
3.44
0.18
0.81
1.78
-0.19
-0.07
0.01
-0.01
-0.89
-0.43
0.22
-0.32
3.13
3.48
0.21
0.36
Afterschool
Supervision
Afterschool location
Afterschool Activities
Self-Care
Parent Care
Non-Parent Adult Care
Sibling Care
Mixed-Care
Own Home
Someone else's home
School or other place for
structured activities
Somewhere to "hang out"
Mixed location
Doing homework
Attending Afterschool program
Receiving Private Tutoring
Reading books at home
Reading at community program
Music, dancing, art
Organized sports
Playing games that are not sports
Activities at mosque, temple,
church
Watching TV
Hanging out with friends
Volunteering at the community
Working at a job
Doing house chores
Taking care of a sibling
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001
0.57
-0.003
1.01
-0.02
4.78
3.04
Figure 2 shows the percentage of children who report having different reading materials at
home, school and the community, by treatment status. The regressions indicated that there are no
differences between children in the treatment and control groups in those categories. Within those
categories, we also do not observe differences, but can appreciate that a great percentage of children
have texts available in school, but not at home or the community. Most other reading resources are
available to them in the community, but not at home or school.
Home
School
Control
Internet
Comics
Coloring Books
Children's books
Newspapers
Magazines
Religious
Texts
Internet
Comics
Coloring Books
Children's books
Newspapers
Magazines
Religious
Texts
Internet
Comics
Coloring Books
Children's books
Newspapers
Magazines
Religious
Texts
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Community
Treatment
Figure 2. Percentage of children who report having different types of reading materials at home,
school and the community, by treatment status.
Research Question 2: At baseline, what are children's average literacy skills by treatment and
District? Are there significant differences in literacy outcomes between children who received an offer
to participate in READ CORE Plus and children who did not receive the offer?
We did not find any statistically significant differences in the baseline literacy outcomes of
children attending schools who received the offer to participate in READ Core Plus and those
attending schools who received the offer to participate in READ Core. As can be seen in Table 6, there
aren´t any differences in the alphabet knowledge, recognition of most used words, phonemic
awareness, vocabulary, percentage of readers, fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension skills of
children in schools assigned to different treatment status (p>.001). However, we do observe a
statistically significant differences in reading with comprehension which favors children in the
treatment group (p<.01) (To see full regression models including covariates see Appendix. Table 7
includes models for low order literacy skills. Table 8 includes models for high order literacy skills).
Table 6. Coefficients, standard errors and p-values for regressions of treatment on the key outcomes
of interest, adjusting for clustering at the school level and controlling for demographic characteristics
and District Fixed effects
Literacy Outcome
Coefficient
Standard error
p-value
N
Alphabet Knowledge
-0.53
0.99
0.59
2177
Most Used Words
-0.02
0.05
0.60
2177
Phonemic Awareness
-0.01
0.02
0.76
2177
Vocabulary
-0.01
0.01
0.68
2177
Reader
-0.01
0.02
0.50
2177
Fluency
0.87
1.28
0.50
423
Accuracy
0.01
0.01
0.60
423
Reading Comprehension
0.10
0.06
0.07
423
Reading with Comprehension
.118
0.04
0.01
423
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001
Figure 3 shows average alphabet knowledge of children by treatment status and district.
Specifically, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between children in the
treatment and control groups in their alphabet awareness. On average, children in Barisal show the
highest scores of all groups, but differences are only statistically significant as compared to those in
Sylhet. Children in Sylhet exhibit scores that are statistically significantly lower (p<.05) than the
scores in children from all other districts, with the exception of Cox’s Bazar, where children have
similarly low scores.
Alphabet Knowledge
Number of letters in the Bangla alphabet
identified correctly
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
36.31
31.36
32.98
32.04
27.85
32.29
32.14
READ Core
37.21
32.26
33.89
32.95
28.76
33.19
33.04
READ Core+
READ Core
Figure 3. Average Alphabet Knowledge by Treatment Status and District (n=2177)
Figure 4 shows the distribution of scores in the letter knowledge of children according to
their district. In addition to a significant amount of zero scores, which reflect children who were
unable to identify any letter in the alphabet, we observe a distribution that indicates that many
children are able to identify approximately 45 letters in the alphabet and many of them are able to
identify them all. As can be observed, children in Barisal exhibit the highest probability of being
able to identify many letters in the alphabet, while children in Sylhet have the highest probability of
being unable to identify any letter in the alphabet as well as the lowest one being able to identify 40
.03
.02
0
.01
kdensity ltrstot
.04
.05
letters or more.
0
10
20
30
40
50
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 4. Histogram of Alphabet Knowledge, by District
Figure 5 shows average percentage of most used words that children are able to recognize from
a list of 20 familiar words, by treatment status and district. We observe that there aren't any statistically
significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their ability to read
familiar words. Children in Barisal show the highest performance and differences are statistically
significant when compared to all other districts (p<.01). Children in Sylhet exhibit the lowest scores
of all districts, but differences are only statistically significantly when compared to the performance
of children in Barisal (p<.001).
Most Used Words
Percentage of most used words
read correctly
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
54.46%
33.78%
32.67%
26.08%
26.19%
27.40%
32.63%
READ Core
57.01%
36.32%
35.21%
28.62%
28.74%
29.95%
35.18%
READ Core+
READ Core
Figure 5. Percentage of Familiar Words Recognized by Treatment Status and District (n=2177)
Figure 6 shows the distribution of scores for most used words, according to district. Once
again, the distribution shows a great amount of children –especially in Sylhet- have a high
probability of being unable to identify familiar words. We also observe that children in Barisal have
the lowest probability of being unable to recognize familiar words, as well as the highest probability
of being able to identify them.
4
3
kdensity muwpct
2
1
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 6. Histogram of Percentage of Most Used Words, by District
Figure 7 shows average percentage of vocabulary words that children are able to retrieve after
prompted by questions and images, by district and treatment status. We observe that there aren't any
statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their ability
to retrieve vocabulary words. Children in Barisal exhibit the largest vocabulary words and differences
are statistically significant when compared to all other districts (p<.001). Children in Dhaka also show
a vocabulary that is statistically superior to the vocabulary of children in other districts (p<.001), but
inferior to the vocabulary of children in Barisal (p<.001). Children in Rangpur exhibit the lowest
performance of all districts, but differences are only statistically significant when compared to the
higher performance of their peers in Dhaka (p<.001) and Barisal (p<.001).
Vocabulary
100%
Percentage of vocabulary words
identified
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
83.54%
67.00%
64.64%
64.49%
68.59%
75.75%
70.43%
READ Core
84.51%
67.97%
65.61%
65.46%
69.55%
76.72%
71.39%
Axis Title
READ Core+
READ Core
Figure 7. Average Percentage of Vocabulary by Treatment Status and District (n=2177)
Figure 8 shows the distribution of children who are able to read different percentages of
vocabulary words, according to district. We observe that the distribution of children in Barisal and
Dhaka have ceiling effects, reflecting the fact that many children are able to identify most vocabulary
words as prompted in the test by facilitators.
3
2
kdensity Vocabpct
1
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 8. Histogram of Percentage of Vocabulary, by District
Figure 9 shows average phonemic awareness, defined as the percentage of similar beginning
sounds and rhyming words that children are able to read correctly from a list of 20, by district and
treatment status. We observe that there aren't any statistically significant differences between children
in the treatment and control groups in their phonemic awareness. Children in Cox's Bazar exhibit the
highest phonemic awareness of all districts with differences that are statistically significant when
compared to all other districts (p<.001). Children in Dhaka exhibit the lowest phonemic awareness,
and differences are also statistically significant when compared to the performance of children in all
other districts (p<.001).
Phonemic Awareness
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
44.50%
51.73%
34.43%
34.90%
40.42%
24.00%
38.00%
READ Core
45.49%
52.72%
35.43%
35.89%
41.41%
24.99%
39.00%
READ Core+
READ Core
Figure 9. Average Percentage of Phonemic Awareness by Treatment Status and District (n=2177)
Figure 10 shows the distribution of percentage of phonemic awareness, according to district.
We observe that the greatest proportion of children in Cox´s Bazar exhibit high phonemic awareness
and only a very small proportion exhibit low phonemic awareness. In contract, we observe that the
greatest proportion of children in Dhaka are unable to read correctly similar beginning sounds and
rhyming words as observed in their high zero scores, as well as the lowest proportion of children who
are able to do the same, as compared to all other districts.
2.5
2
1.5
1
.5
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 10. Histogram of Percentage of Phonetic Awareness, by District
Readers
Figure 11 shows the average percentage of children who are independent readers, defined as
the ability to read 5 words within the first 30 seconds of a reading passage test, by treatment status and
district. We observe that there aren't any statistically significant differences between the percentage of
readers in the treatment and control groups. On average, readers constitute 18.11% of the READ Core+
group and 19.79% of READ Core group. Barisal has the highest percentage of readers with differences
that are statistically significant when compared to all other groups (p<.001) and Rangpur the lowest
one percentage of readers, but differences are only significant when compared to outcomes from
Barisal.
Readers
Percentage of children able to read 5 words
correctly within 30 seconds
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
32.64%
17.45%
18.22%
11.87%
14.36%
15.97%
18.11%
READ Core
34.31%
19.12%
19.89%
13.54%
16.04%
17.65%
19.79%
Figure 11. Average Percentage of Readers by Treatment Status and District (n=2177)
High order literacy skills
In the final sub-tests students who qualified as readers were assessed on their fluency,
reading accuracy and reading comprehension. This section presents results for the 19% of students
who qualified as readers. (See Table 8 in the Appendix)
Reading Accuracy
Figure 12 shows average reading accuracy, defined as the percentage of words read correctly
in a reading passage of 59 words (only for readers), by treatment status and district. We observe that
there aren't any statistically significant differences between children in the treatment (READ CORE
Plus) and control (READ Core) groups in their reading accuracy. Children in Barisal exhibit the
highest reading accuracy of all groups and their performance is statistically when compared with
children in Dhaka (p<.001) and Khulna (p<.05), who exhibit the lowest performance of all groups.
Accuracy
100%
Percentage of passage read correctly
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
READ Core+
90.17%
87.48%
84.64%
86.93%
86.06%
83.78%
READ Core
88.20%
85.50%
82.67%
84.95%
84.09%
81.81%
Figure 12. Average Reading Accuracy of Independent Readers by Treatment Status and District
(n=423)
Figure 13 shows the distribution of reading accuracy scores by district. We observe that in
most districts the distribution that is skewed right, reflecting the fact that, overall, readers are able to
read with good accuracy. The distributions shows that Barisal has the highest proportion of children
with high reading accuracy as well as the smallest proportion of children with low reading accuracy.
A high proportion of children in Rangpur exhibit high reading accuracy, but more children in this
district exhibit low reading accuracy scores than in other districts. Both Dhaka and Khulna exhibit a
lower proportion of children reading with high accuracy.
5
4
0
1
2
3
kdensity Readpct
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 13. Histogram of Percentage of Reading Accuracy, by District
Figure 14 shows average fluency of independent readers, defined as the number of words per
minute read correctly, by treatment status and district. We observe that there aren't any statistically
significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their reading fluency,
but that there are some differences between districts. The highest fluency average is observed in
Sylhet3 but differences are only statistically significant when compared to Khulna (p<.001) and Dhaka
(p<.05).
3
To some degree the high average score observed in Sylhet is driven by an outlier which I examined carefully but
decided to leave as a legitimate datapoint based on other equally high literacy scores. However, even after taking out the
outlier, Sylhet contines having the highest fluency average.
Fluency
25
Words per minute
20
15
10
5
0
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
19
21
11
17
21
16
10
READ Core
18
20
10
16
19
14
8
Figure 15. Average Reading Accuracy of Independent Readers by Treatment Status and District
(n=423)
Figure 16 shows the distribution of reading fluency by district. The distributions show that
Sylhet and Cox’s Bazar have the largest proportion of children with high reading fluency. Sylhet
exhibits a case of great reading fluency, an outlier that was confirmed to be a legitimate datapoint.
We also observe that children in Khulna and Dhaka exhibit large proportions of children reading
with low fluency.
.08
.06
0
kdensity wcpm
.04
.02
0
50
100
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 16. Histogram of Fluency Scores, by District
Reading Comprehension
Readers were also assessed on ten reading comprehension questions related to the reading
passage. Figure 17 shows students' average reading comprehension, defined as the percentage of
reading comprehension questions (out of 10) that readers are able to answer correctly after reading a
passage, by treatment status and district. We observe that there aren't any statistically significant
differences between children in the treatment (READ Core Plus) and control (READ Core) groups in
their reading comprehension. Children in Cox’s Bazar exhibit the highest reading comprehension of
all groups, with differences that are statistically significant when compared to Ranpur (p<.01) and all
other districts (p<.001). Children in Dhaka exhibit the lowest reading comprehension, and significantly
different from the average performance of children in Cox’s Bazar (p<.001), Rangpur (p<.001) and
Barisal (p<.01).
Reading Comprehension
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Barisal
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Rangpur
Sylhet
Dhaka
AVERAGE
READ Core+
59%
80%
53%
65%
51%
47%
59%
READ Core
54%
75%
48%
60%
46%
42%
54%
READ Core+
READ Core
Figure 17. Average Percentage of Reading Comprehension by Treatment Status and District (n=386)
Figure 18 shows the distribution of reading comprehension by district. The distributions
show that Cox’s Bazar and Rangpur have the largest proportion of children with high reading
comprehension and Dhaka the largest proportion of children with low reading comprehension.
2
1.5
1
kdensity comprpct
.5
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 18. Histogram of Percentage of Reading Comprehension Questions Answered Correctly
(readers only) by District (n=432)
Table 9 in the Appendix shows the regression results for different types of reading
comprehension questions. Figure 19 shows the percentage of different types of reading
comprehension questions that students were able to answer correctly. Reading comprehension
questions included summary, factual, inferential, and evaluative questions. For the summary
question students were asked what the story was about and their responses were marked correct if
they mentioned at least three of four main points of the story (characters, problem, action,
resolution). Six literal questions asked children about information that was directly available in the
text, such as "What was the name of the main character?" and "Where did the main character go?".
Two inferential questions asked children about information that was indirectly available in the text.
Finally, one evaluative question asked children for their opinion of the text, and children’s responses
were scored correctly if they justified their opinion with information from the text. We did not
observe statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in
their summary, literal and evaluative comprehension, but we did observe differences in their
inferential comprehension, which favor the treatment group (p<.05) (See Table 9). Overall, summary
questions, literal questions and inferential questions were equally challenging for students, with
correct response rates within 55% and 66%. The hardest reading comprehension questions for
students in the sample were the evaluative questions, with correct response rate between 35% and
45%.
Reading Comprehension by Type of Question
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading
Comprehension
Summary*
Reading
Comprehension
Literal
Reading
Comprehension
Inferential*
Reading
Comprehension
Evaluative
READ Core+
66%
62%
65%
46%
READ Core
55%
61%
56%
38%
Figure 19. Reading comprehension questions by (readers only) by Type (n=432)
Figures 20-23 shows students’ reading comprehension by types of question (summary,
literal, inferential and evaluative) in each district. We can observe that children in Cox’s Bazar
exhibit the highest performance of all groups in all types of reading comprehension questions.
In all figures, we observe that children in Cox’s Bazar (p<.001) and Rangpur (p<.001) have the
highest performance of all groups, with differences that are statistically significant when compared
to all other districts, but not among themselves.
2
1.5
1
.5
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Figure 20. Summary Reading Comprehension, by District.
0
.2
.4
.6
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Figure 21. Literal Reading Comprehension, by District
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Figure 22. Inferential Reading Comprehension, by District
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
1
2
1.5
1
.5
0
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
x
Barisal
Dhaka
Rangpur
Cox's Bazar
Khulna
Sylhet
Figure 23. Evaluative Reading Comprehension, by District
Readers with Comprehension
Figure 24 shows the percentage of 1) non-readers, 2) readers, defined as those who are able to read
five words correctly within the first 30 seconds, 3) readers with comprehension, defined as those
who are able to answer correctly 50% of reading comprehension questions, and 4) readers with
advanced comprehension, defined as those who are able to answer correctly 80% or more of reading
comprehension questions. We do not observe statistically significant differences between nonreaders. We observe that children in the treatment group have less readers than children in the
control group (p<.05). We do not observe any statistically significant differences between readers
with comprehension and readers with advanced comprehension in the treatment and control groups.
Treatment
85.01%
Control
4.18% 6.63% 4.18%
83.01%
0%
10%
Non-readers
20%
Readers
30%
40%
6.16% 6.08% 4.75%
50%
Readers with Comprehension
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Readers with Advanced Comprehension
Figure 24. Percentage of Non-Readers, Readers, Readers with Comprehension and Readers with
Advanced Comprehension by Treatment Status
Who is falling behind?
Using the coefficients of different covariates from the multi-level regression models, we
identified associations between the literacy subscales and students’ background information, in terms
of the sex, socio-economic status and reading materials available at home. Table 7 presents our
findings. We observe that boys and children in lower SES are falling behind girls and children in
higher SES in their knowledge of the alphabet, ability to identify most used words, phonemic
awareness, vocabulary, ability to read and fluency, but not in terms of their reading accuracy and
reading comprehension. Children in house environments with few reading materials are falling
behind children living in homes with more access to reading materials in terms of their phonemic
awareness, vocabulary and reading fluency. Children who did not attend and ECD are falling behind
children who had the opportunity to attend preschool in their alphabet knowledge, ability to identify
most used words, and their vocabulary.
Table 7: At Baseline, Who is Falling Behind?
Sex
SocioEconomic
Status
Reading
Materials at
home
Previous ECD
Attendance
Alphabet
Knowledge
Boys***
Low SES***
--
No ECD***
Most Used
Words
Boys***
Low SES***
--
No ECD***
Phonemic
Awareness
Boys***
Low SES**
Few reading
materials**
--
Vocabulary
Boys**
Low SES***
Few reading
materials*
NO ECD*
% Readers
Boys***
Low SES**
--
--
Boys*
Low SES***
Few reading
materials***
--
Accuracy
--
--
--
--
Reading
Comprehension
--
--
--
--
Fluency
Discussion
The present study uses a randomized controlled clustered design to estimate the value added
of a community-based literacy intervention (READ Core Plus) over a core school-based literacy
packet (READ Core), on a set of literacy outcomes of interest. The present report presents the analyses
of the baseline data that was collected in May and June 2016. Analysis indicates that the randomization
worked, as we found that children in treatment and control groups are perfectly balanced on a set of
observable characteristics.
Internal Validity
Concerns about internal validity address the question of whether an intervention makes
significant differences in the outcomes of participants (Shadish et al, 2002). Given that the present
study uses an experimental design where schools were randomly assigned to treatment and control
groups, we will be able to make causal inferences about the effects of READ Core Plus on our
outcomes of interest. In fact, random assignment effectively eliminates the probability that children in
treatment and control groups would differ in observable and unobservable characteristics that may
have an impact on the outcomes of interest. A potential threat to the internal validity of an experimental
study can be that, despite the random assignment, children in the treatment and control groups would
still be different in observable and unobservable characteristics before the initiation of activities. One
of the strengths of the present study is that we collected pretest scores, and were able to determine that
groups are actually equal in expectation. In fact, after analyzing the baseline data we confirmed that
before initiation of activities children in the control and treatment groups did not exhibit statistically
significant differences in any observable characteristics. Therefore, any post-test changes in
endogenous characteristics can be attributed to the causal effect of the offer to participate in READ
Core Plus.
Another potential threat to the internal validity of an experimental study can be diffusion
effects. Specifically, if children in the treatment group are able to interact with children in the control
group, the effects of the intervention may have an effect on them as well. In our study, diffusion effects
are of low concern because schools were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups and
therefore, children are not in contact with one another. Additionally, schools assigned to treatment and
control groups are located within the same Upazila, but with distances that would make it unlikely for
children to influence each other.
A future threat to the internal validity of our experimental study is that students’ treatment
status would change after their initial random assignment. We will address this problem by conducting
intent-to-treat (ITT) and treatment on the treated analysis (TOT). ITT analysis examine the effect of
being randomly assigned to a treatment group on several outcomes of interest, without regard for
whether or not the chosen participants received the treatment or not, and independently of the dosage
or amount of hours they actually attended the program. ITT estimates are based on the original
intention to provide treatment to a given group of participants, and not to the treatment that they
actually received. For this reason, ITT analysis will resemble the effect that READ Core Plus will
have in the “real” world, where some children who received the offer to participate in the program
will take full advantage of the opportunity, some will take inconsistent advantage and some will not
take advantage. TOT estimates will determine the effect of READ Core Plus on children who did not
change their treatment status and actually participated in the program.
External Validity
External validity concerns the inference about the extent to which the causal relationship that
we will identify between READ and the outcomes of interest holds over variations in persons, settings,
treatments and outcomes that were in the experiment (Shadish et al, 2002). Given the point of
randomization used in the experiment-the criteria used to select students to participate in the lotteriesthe findings of the present study will only apply to first grade children in GPS schools. Given that
Save the Children, USAID and donors have determined that READ should target schools from poor
and marginalized communities in Bangladesh, the findings of this experimental study will only
generalize to students at high risk of negative educational outcomes, who live in rural areas of
Bangladesh. Specifically, the findings of this study will not generalize to students or settings that are
not represented in this sample, such as:1) older students, 2) students from medium or high SES, 3) in
urban areas, and 4) who attend Newly Nationalized Schools, Madrasas or private schools, 5) who live
in other countries. In this regard, it is very likely that our findings would overestimate the effects of
READ on children from more privileged backgrounds.
References
Murnane, R & Willet, J (2011) Methods Matter. Improving Causal Inference in Educational and
Social Science Research. Oxford.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Appendix
Table 7. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ
CORE Plus ) and control groups (READ CORE) in a key literacy outcomes, after accounting for
demographic characteristics and district fixed effects (n=2177)
Alphabet
Knowledge
Most Used
Words
Phonemic
Awareness
Vocabulary
Reader
Intercept
28.09***
(3.350)
0.227**
(0.0741)
0.0803
(0.0444)
0.492***
(0.0416)
0.179*
(0.0745)
Treatment
-0.907
(1.327)
-0.0247
(0.0284)
-0.00987
(0.0142)
-0.00960
(0.0134)
-0.0168
(0.0235)
Age
-0.193
(0.376)
-0.0112
(0.00840)
0.0162**
(0.00525)
0.0284***
(0.00492)
-0.0185*
(0.00882)
Sex
2.485***
(0.685)
0.0567***
(0.0153)
0.0465***
(0.00970)
0.0227*
(0.00908)
0.0522**
(0.0163)
SES
0.788***
(0.201)
0.0183***
(0.00452)
0.00790**
(0.00283)
0.0124***
(0.00265)
0.0168***
(0.00476)
0.181
(0.717)
0.0166
(0.0160)
0.0279**
(0.0100)
0.0221*
(0.00938)
0.0287
(0.0168)
2.535***
(0.747)
0.0595***
(0.0167)
-0.00175
(0.0105)
0.0254**
(0.00980)
0.0184
(0.0176)
Barisal
4.024
(2.186)
0.269***
(0.0469)
0.205***
(0.0238)
0.0780***
(0.0224)
0.167***
(0.0395)
Cox’s Bazar
-0.916
(2.773)
0.0652
(0.0593)
0.277***
(0.0294)
-0.0874**
(0.0277)
0.0147
(0.0487)
Khulna
0.721
(2.129)
0.0548
(0.0456)
0.104***
(0.0228)
-0.111***
(0.0215)
0.0225
(0.0378)
Rangpur
-0.223
(2.160)
-0.0141
(0.0462)
0.109***
(0.0232)
-0.113***
(0.0218)
-0.0411
(0.0384)
Sylhet
-4.427
(2.308)
-0.0131
(0.0496)
0.164***
(0.0254)
-0.0718**
(0.0239)
-0.0161
(0.0421)
Home Materials
ECD
Sigma u
Sigma e
Rho
N
0.07
0.24
0.155
2177
Standard errors in parentheses
="* p<0.05
** p<0.01
0.05
0.24
0.141
2177
0.06
0.22
0.0692
2177
0.05
0.2
0.0709
2177
0.09
0.37
0.0656
2177
*** p<0.001"
Table 8. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ
CORE Plus ) and control groups (READ CORE) in key advanced literacy outcomes (only for
readers), after accounting for demographic characteristics and district fixed effects.
Accuracy
Fluency
Reading
Comprehension
Reading with
Comprehension
Intercept
0.782***
(0.0602)
-6.170
(7.325)
0.210
(0.107)
0.0648
(0.197)
Treatment
0.0202
(0.0153)
2.703
(2.475)
0.0498*
(0.0251)
0.118*
(0.0459)
Age
0.00567
(0.00766)
1.221
(0.888)
0.0293*
(0.0138)
0.0407
(0.0252)
Sex
0.0136
(0.0136)
2.885
(1.485)
-0.00301
(0.0249)
0.00841
(0.0456)
SES
-0.000976
(0.00397)
1.485***
(0.444)
0.00384
(0.00723)
0.0112
(0.0132)
Home Materials
-0.0157
(0.0117)
5.968***
(1.409)
-0.0435*
(0.0206)
-0.0861*
(0.0378)
ECD
-0.00278
(0.0143)
2.872
(1.614)
0.00754
(0.0257)
0.00292
(0.0470)
Barisal
0.0636**
(0.0242)
4.008
(3.924)
0.123**
(0.0398)
0.217**
(0.0728)
Cox’s Bazar
0.0371
(0.0331)
5.676
(5.591)
0.324***
(0.0529)
0.486***
(0.0970)
Khulna
0.00757
(0.0249)
-5.584
(4.009)
0.0596
(0.0409)
0.169*
(0.0750)
Rangpur
0.0312
(0.0270)
1.815
(4.212)
0.181***
(0.0452)
0.343***
(0.0828)
Sylhet
0.0224
(0.0315)
10.29*
(4.679)
0.0362
(0.0539)
0.106
(0.0987)
0.03
0.13
0.0598
423
10.24
13.92
0.351
423
0
0.25
0
423
0
0.45
0
423
Sigma_U
Sigma_e
Rho
N
Table 9. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ
CORE Plus) and control groups (READ CORE) in different types of reading comprehension
outcomes (only for readers), after accounting for demographic characteristics and district fixed
effects. (n=423)
Summary
Comprehension
Literal
Comprehension
Inferential
Comprehension
Evaluative
Comprehension
Intercept
-0.0810
(0.201)
0.283**
(0.105)
0.198
(0.167)
0.0879
(0.192)
Treatment
0.119*
(0.0468)
0.0169
(0.0244)
0.0957*
(0.0390)
0.0862
(0.0448)
Age
0.0739**
(0.0257)
0.0274*
(0.0134)
0.0261
(0.0214)
0.00254
(0.0246)
Sex
-0.00642
(0.0465)
0.0164
(0.0242)
-0.0728
(0.0387)
0.0234
(0.0445)
SES
0.000616
(0.0135)
-0.000285
(0.00704)
0.00944
(0.0113)
0.0206
(0.0129)
Home Materials
-0.0457
(0.0385)
-0.0478*
(0.0201)
-0.0385
(0.0321)
-0.0255
(0.0369)
ECD
-0.0313
(0.0480)
0.00569
(0.0250)
0.0235
(0.0400)
0.0256
(0.0459)
Barisal
0.0882
(0.0743)
0.111**
(0.0387)
0.146*
(0.0619)
0.182*
(0.0711)
Cox’s Bazar
0.387***
(0.0989)
0.311***
(0.0515)
0.319***
(0.0824)
0.352***
(0.0947)
Khulna
-0.0141
(0.0764)
0.0936*
(0.0398)
0.115
(0.0637)
-0.181*
(0.0732)
Rangpur
0.378***
(0.0844)
0.108*
(0.0440)
0.268***
(0.0703)
0.248**
(0.0808)
-0.0521
(0.101)
0.0496
(0.0524)
-0.00624
(0.0838)
0.129
(0.0963)
0
0.47
0
423
0
0.24
0
423
0
0.39
0
423
0
0.45
0
423
Sylhet
Sigma_U
Sigma_e
rho
N