Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Implementation fidelity in computerised assessment of book reading

Published: 01 January 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Measuring the implementation fidelity (IF) or integrity of interventions is extremely important, since without it a positive or negative outcome cannot be interpreted. However, IF is actually measured relatively rarely. Direct and indirect methods of measurement have been used in the past, but tend to over-emphasize teacher behaviour. This paper focuses on student behaviour collated through computers - an interesting alternative. It deals with the reading of real books and reading achievement, for which variables a very large amount of computerised data was available on 852,295 students in 3243 schools. Reading achievement was measured pre-post with STAR Reading, a computerised item-banked adaptive norm-referenced test of reading comprehension. IF came from the Accelerated Reader (AR), which measures understanding of independent reading of real books the student has chosen by a quiz. Results showed higher IF was related to higher achievement. Neither IF nor reading achievement related to socio-economic status. Primary (elementary) schools had higher IF and achievement than secondary (high) schools. Females had higher IF and achievement than males. Students of higher reading ability implemented AR at a higher level, but did not gain in reading at a higher level. However, this computerised method of measuring IF with book reading showed limited reliability, no greater than methods emphasising teacher behaviour. In future, IF measures emphasising student response and those emphasising teacher behaviour need to be blended, although the latter will never generate the sample size of the former. This may be true of implementation fidelity in areas other than book reading. Implementation fidelity (IF) important for evaluating outcomes.Focus on computerised assessment of reading of real books (IF) and reading outcomes.Higher IF related to higher outcomes with 852,295 students.But computerised IF little more reliable than methods emphasising teacher behaviour.In future, both methods should be blended possibly for IF in areas beyond reading.

References

[1]
R. Balu, P. Zhu, F. Doolittle, E. Schiller, J. Jenkins, R. Gersten, Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Washington, DC, 2015. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560820.pdf
[2]
J.C. Begeny, J.E. Easton, J.J. Upright, K.R. Tunstall, C.A. Ehrenbock, The reliability and user-feasibility of materials and procedures for monitoring the implementation integrity of a reading intervention, Psychology in the Schools, 51 (2014) 517-533.
[3]
J.C. Begeny, D.J. Greene, Can readability formulas be used to successfully gauge difficulty of reading materials?, Psychology in the Schools, 51 (2014) 198-215.
[4]
J. Begeny, J. Upright, J. Easton, C. Ehrenbock, K. Tunstall, Validity estimates and functionality of materials and procedures used to monitor the implementation integrity of a reading intervention, Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29 (2013) 284-304.
[5]
G.J. Benner, J.R. Nelson, S.A. Stage, N.C. Ralston, The influence of fidelity of implementation on the reading outcomes of middle school students experiencing reading difficulties, Remedial and Special Education, 32 (2011) 79-88.
[6]
D.W. Betebenner, Atechnical overview of the student growth percentile methodology: Student growth percentiles and percentile growth projections/trajectories, The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Dover, New Hampshire, 2011. http://www.nj.gov/education/njsmart/performance/SGP_Technical_Overview.pdf
[7]
G.D. Borman, N.M. Dowling, Testing the reading renaissance program theory: A multilevel analysis of student and classroom effects on reading achievement, University of WisconsinMadison, 2004.
[8]
C. Carroll, M. Patterson, S. Wood, A. Booth, J. Rick, S. Balain, Aconceptual framework for implementation fidelity, Implementation Science, 72 (2007) 40. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40
[9]
S. Ciullo, E.S. Lembke, A. Carlisle, C.N. Thomas, M. Goodwin, L. Judd, Implementation of evidence-based literacy practices in middle school response to intervention: An observation study, Learning Disability Quarterly, 39 (2016) 44-57.
[10]
A.V. Dane, B.H. Schneider, Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?, Clinical Psychology Review, 18 (1998) 23.
[11]
C.L. Darrow, Measuring fidelity in preschool interventions: A microanalysis of fidelity instruments used in curriculum interventions, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Evanston, IL, 2010. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514643.pdf
[12]
Department for Education, Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2015, DfE, London, 2015.
[13]
J.P. Durlak, E.P. DuPre, Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation, American Journal of Community Psychology, 41 (2008) 327-350.
[14]
L.C. Fedor, The relationship between the level of implementation of scientifically based reading instructional practices in K-3 and grade 3 Pennsylvania system of school assessment reading achievement in north-eastern Pennsylvania, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 2013. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1468677472
[15]
J. Feldman, K. Feighan, E. Kirtcheva, E. Heereen, Aiming High: Exploring the influence of implementation fidelity and cognitive demand levels on struggling readers' literacy outcomes, Journal of Classroom Interaction, 47 (2012) 4-13.
[16]
M. Fogarty, E. Oslund, D. Simmons, J. Davis, L. Simmons, L. Anderson, Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: A focus on treatment fidelity, Educational Psychology Review, 26 (2014) 425-449.
[17]
K.L. Henninger, Exploring the relationship between factors of implementation, treatment integrity and reading fluency, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ann Arbor, MA, 2010. http://search.proquest.com/docview/638627099
[18]
E. McIntyre, R. Powell, K.B. Coots, D. Jones, S. Powers, F. Deeters, Reading instruction in the NCLB era: Teachers' implementation fidelity of early reading models, Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 5 (2005) 66-102.
[19]
M. Milone, Development of the ATOS readability formula, Renaissance Learning, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 2014.
[20]
J. Nelson, C. Perfetti, D. Liben, M. Liben, Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance, Student Achievement Partners, New York, 2012.
[21]
A.L. Noltemeyer, W.J. Boone, F.J. Sansosti, Assessing school-level RTI implementation for reading: Development and piloting of the RTIS-R, Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40 (2014) 40-52.
[22]
T.D. Paul, Guided independent reading: An examination of the Reading Practice Database and the scientific research supporting guided independent reading as implemented in Reading Renaissance, Renaissance Learning, Inc, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 2003.
[23]
Renaissance Learning, Guided independent reading, Renaissance Learning, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 2012. http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R005577721AC3667.pdf
[24]
Renaissance Learning, STAR reading technical manual (UK), Renaissance Learning, London, 2013.
[25]
Renaissance Learning, The research foundation for STAR assessments, Renaissance Learning, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 2014.
[26]
Renaissance Learning, Accelerated Reader 360 understanding reliability and validity, Renaissance Learning, Wisconsin Rapids, WI, 2014. http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R003580612GF885B.pdf
[27]
L.M.H. Sanetti, L.M. Fallon, Treatment integrity assessment: How estimates of adherence, quality, and exposure influence interpretation of implementation, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 21 (2011) 209-232.
[28]
A.C. Schulte, J.E. Easton, J. Parker, Advances in treatment integrity research: Multidisciplinary perspectives on the conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement of treatment integrity, School Psychology Review, 38 (2009) 460-475.
[29]
Y. Shang, A. VanIwaarden, D.W. Betebenner, Covariate measurement error correction for Student Growth Percentiles using the SIMEX method, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34 (2015) 4-14.
[30]
K. Sharp, K. Sanders, A. Noltemeyer, J.L. Hoffman, W.J. Boone, The relationship between RTI implementation and reading achievement: A school-level analysis, Preventing School Failure, 60 (2016) 152-160.
[31]
J. Stockard, An analysis of the fidelity implementation policies of the what Works Clearinghouse, Current Issues in Education, 13 (2010).
[32]
K.J. Topping, Fiction and non-fiction reading and comprehension in preferred books, Reading Psychology, 36 (2015) 350-387.
[33]
J.H. Wehby, D.M. Maggin, L. Johnson, F.J. Symons, Improving intervention implementation and fidelity in evidence-based practice: Integrating teacher preference into intervention selection, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Evanston, IL, 2010.
[34]
D.M. Williams, Middle level best practice and student achievement in Texas, Current Issues in Middle Level Education, 20 (2015) 8-17.
[35]
S.P. Wright, An investigation of two nonparametric regression models for value-added assessment in education, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, 2010. https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Report-Card-Resources/Ohio-Report-Cards/Value-Added-Technical-Reports-1/An-Investigation-of-Two-Nonparametric-Regression-Models-for-Value-Added-Assessment-in-Education-S-Paul-Wright-1.pdf.aspx

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computers & Education
Computers & Education  Volume 116, Issue C
January 2018
244 pages

Publisher

Elsevier Science Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2018

Author Tags

  1. Evaluation methodologies
  2. Gender studies
  3. Improving classroom teaching
  4. Pedagogical issues
  5. Teaching and learning strategies

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 18 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media