Righting Reading in Middle School: Readable English Helps Underperforming Adolescent Readers

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive student demographics by condition.

Variable	Intervention(N = 167)		Typical practice (N = 177)
	N	%	N	%
Gender
Female	70	41.9	56	31.6
Male	97	58.1	121	68.4
Ethnicity
Asian	1	0.6	1	0.6
Hispanic or Latino	9	5.4	1	0.6
Black or African American	4	2.4	2	1.1
White	153	91.6	173	97.7
Identified for Special Education	100	59.8	139	78.5

Figure 1. Example word with the Readable English markup. Example of Readable English markup. Readable English© (2021). Reprinted with permission.

Table 2. T-test comparisons of pretest measures between condition groups.

Variable	Welch’s T test
	t	df	p
CCSS raw score	–2.18	342	.030
WCPM	0.08	342	.904
Accuracy percentage	–1.89	342	.059
PC standard score	–3.36	174	<.001
PC growth scale value	–3.72	174	<.001
PC grade equivalent	–3.73	174	<.001
ORF standard score	–1.29	174	.099
ORF growth scale value	–1.50	174	.137
ORF grade equivalent	–0.62	174	.533

Note. CCSS = common core state standards basic reading comprehension; WCPM = words read correctly per minute (reading rate); PC = passage comprehension; ORF = oral reading fluency.

Differences between condition groups in reading comprehension pretest measures are statistically significant and are entered in the ANCOVA model as a variable of reading comprehension prior knowledge. There were no statistically significant differences in fluency measures, so they were excluded as variables in the ANCOVA model.

Table 3. Pretest, posttest, and change means of reading skills assessments.

Reading skills assessment	Pretest mean (SD)		Posttest mean (SD)		Change mean (SD)
	Readable English	Typical practice	Readable English	Typical practice	Readable English	Typical practice
EasyCBM grade level benchmarks	(n = 167)	(n = 177)	(n = 167)	(n = 177)	(n = 167)	(n = 177)
Passage reading fluency
Words correct per minute	128.32 (44.46)	127.75 (43.57)	148.48 (54.49)	129.75 (43.98)	20.16 (20.28)	1.99 (16.81)
Accuracy percentage	96.00 (5.20)	96.92 (3.75)	97.93 (2.45)	96.54 (4.22)	1.93 (3.64)	–0.38 (3.48)
Passage comprehension
Raw score correct answers	16.05 (5.56)	17.30 (5.03)	18.46 (4.68)	16.29 (5.17)	2.40 (4.62)	–1.01 (4.31)
	Readable English	Typical Practice	Readable English	Typical Practice	Readable English	Typical Practice
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3rd Ed.	(n = 87)	(n = 89)	(n = 87)	(n = 89)	(n = 87)	(n = 89)
Oral Reading fluency
Growth scale value	495.70 (17.69)	499.38 (14.89)	501.06 (16.68)	499.58 (14.36)	5.36 (5.90)	0.20 (7.18)
Grade equivalent	4.12 (2.20)	4.30 (1.68)	4.79 (2.49)	4.36 (2.16)	0.67 (0.91)	0.06 (1.27)
Standard score	81.82 (12.51)	84.01 (9.89)	84.15 (12.74)	82.51 (10.35)	2.33 (4.61)	–1.51 (5.46)
Passage comprehension
Growth scale value	496.48 (13.38)	504.34 (14.55)	510.78 (13.39)	504.03 (14.78)	14.30 (10.64)	–0.30 (11.76)
Grade equivalent	3.88 (1.32)	4.90 (2.19)	5.81 (2.22)	4.79 (2.13)	1.93 (1.60)	–0.11 (1.70)
Standard score	76.26 (8.95)	81.73 (12.29)	85.10 (11.83)	78.96 (12.44)	8.84 (8.61)	–2.78 (10.11)

Note: Only students who scored at or below the 30th percentile on either EasyCBM reading fluency or comprehension benchmarks were assessed with the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3rd Edition.

Table 4. Descriptive categories corresponding to standard scores and standard deviations from the mean.

Descriptive category	Standard score range	Standard deviations from the mean
Well below average	69 and below	–2.1 and below
Below average	70–84	–2.0 to –1.1
Average	85–115	–1.0 to 1.0
Above average	116–130	1.1 to 2.0
Well above average	131 and above	2.1 and above

Figure 2. Mean change in EasyCBM passage reading accuracy measured in percentage of words read correctly per minute.

Table 5. ANCOVA of EasyCBM reading skills growth controlling for treatment condition, grade level, gender, special education eligibility, and prior knowledge*.

Reading skill assessment covariate	F(df) (1, 339)	p value**	Partial η^2	Obs power
EasyCBM PRF accuracy
Condition group	40.97	<.001	0.11	1.00
Grade level	4.92	.027	0.01	0.60
Special education eligibility	4.69	.031	0.01	0.58
Gender	0.47	.492	0.00	0.11
EasyCBM PRF WCPM
Condition group	73.90	<.001	0.18	1.00
Grade level	25.03	<.001	0.07	1.00
Special education eligibility	7.61	.006	0.02	0.79
Gender	4.76	.030	0.01	0.59
EasyCBM CCSS PC raw score
Condition group	35.71	<.001	0.10	1.00
Grade level	0.63	.427	0.00	0.12
Special education eligibility	5.08	.025	0.02	0.61
Gender	0.05	.830	0.00	0.06
BOY CCSS PC score	101.86	<.001	0.23	1.00

Note. *CCSS Passage Comprehension pretest scores are used to assess prior knowledge as a covariate in the model because t-tests comparisons showed beginning of the year differences between treatment conditions for that comprehension measure. However, t-tests comparisons of pretest passage reading fluency scores showed treatment conditions were not statistically significant and, therefore, they were not entered into the model as covariates.

^** Bonferonni corrections reported for repeated measures.

PRF = passage reading fluency; WCPM = words correct per minute; CCSS = common core state standards; PC = passage comprehension; BOY = beginning-of-year. Partial eta squared effect sizes are defined as follows: ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ ≥ 0.01 small or no effect, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ ≥ 0.06 medium effect, ${\eta }_{\mathrm{p}}^2$ ≥ 0.14 large effect (Levine & Hullett, 2002).

Figure 3. Mean change in EasyCBM passage reading rate measured by the number of words read correctly per minute.

Figure 4. Mean raw score change in EasyCBM CCSS basic reading comprehension.

Table 6. ANCOVA of WRMT-3 reading skills growth controlling for treatment condition, grade level, gender, special education eligibility, and prior knowledge*.

Reading skill measure covariate	F(1, 171)	p value**	Partial η^2	Obs power
ORF growth scale value
Condition group	24.45	<.001	.13	1.00
Grade level	6.73	.010	.04	0.73
Special education eligibility	6.28	.013	.04	0.70
Gender	0.14	.706	.00	0.07
ORF grade equivalent
Condition group	14.04	<.001	.08	0.96
Grade level	0.04	.834	.00	0.06
Special education eligibility	22.18	<.001	.12	1.00
Gender	1.52	.219	.01	0.23
ORF Standard score
Condition group	23.56	<.001	.12	1.00
Grade level	4.12	.044	.02	0.52
Special education eligibility	11.18	.001	.06	0.91
Gender	0.05	.826	.00	0.06
PC growth scale value	F(1, 170)	p value	Partial η^2	Obs power
Condition group	56.43	<.001	.25	1.00
Grade level	3.51	.063	.02	0.46
Special education eligibility	11.27	<.001	.06	0.92
Gender	0.20	.653	.00	0.07
BOY PC growth scale value	43.68	<.001	.20	1.00
PC grade equivalent
Condition group	54.00	<.001	.24	1.00
Grade level	1.57	.213	.01	0.24
Special education eligibility	1.00	.318	.01	0.17
Gender	0.03	.860	.00	0.54
BOY PC grade equivalent	7.55	.007	.04	0.78
PC Standard score
Condition group	53.53	<.001	.24	1.00
Grade level	0.03	.869	.00	0.05
Special education eligibility	2.62	.108	.02	0.36
Gender	0.10	.748	.00	0.06
BOY PC standard score	10.18	.002	.06	0.89

Note. *Passage Comprehension pretest scores are used to assess prior knowledge as a covariate in the model because t-tests comparisons showed statistically significant differences between treatment conditions for that measure. However, t-tests comparisons of pretest Oral Reading Fluency scores showed treatment conditions were not statistically significant and, therefore, they were not entered into the model as covariates.

** Bonferonni corrections reported for repeated measures.

ORF = Oral Reading Fluency; PC = Passage Comprehension.

Figure 5. Mean change in WRMT-3 oral reading fluency measured by growth scale values.

Figure 6. Mean change in WRMT-3 passage reading comprehension measured in growth scale values.

Figure 7. Mean change in WRMT-3 oral reading fluency measured in grade equivalents. Note. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

Figure 8. Mean change in WRMT-3 passage reading comprehension measured in grade equivalents. note. Each tenth of a grade level equals one month of growth.

Figure 9. Mean change in WRMT-3 oral reading fluency measured in standard scores.

Figure 10. Mean change in WRMT-3 passage reading comprehension measured in standard scores.

Readable English. (2021). Technique [infographic]. US Teaching Guide. https://my.readablenglish.com/secure/quickGuides.aspx

 Google Scholar

Levine, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 612–625. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar