Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-1
What Environments Support Reading Growth Among Current Compared With Former Reading Intervention Recipients? A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Their Schools
School context can shape relative intervention response in myriad ways due to factors, such as instructional quality, resource allocation, peer effects, and correlations between the school context and characteristics of enrolled students (e.g., higher-poverty students attending higher-poverty schools). In the current study, we used data from 16,000 U.S. Grade 3 students in a community-based supplemental reading intervention program to investigate the degree to which school context factors (percentage eligible for free/reduced-price lunch [FRPL], school-level achievement) relate to the differences in triannual reading fluency growth rates between students actively receiving supplemental intervention (active recipients) and those that formerly received intervention (and therefore only received general class instruction at this time; former recipients). Using Bayesian multilevel modeling, our findings indicate that school-level FRPL eligibility played a more prominent factor in growth rate differences between these two groups than school-level reading achievement. However, school-level reading achievement was much more strongly related to reading fluency differences between active and former intervention recipients at the beginning of the school year (when controlling for FRPL). Implications for investigating school-level heterogeneity in intervention response and sustainability are discussed.
ArmorD. J.MarksG. N.MalataninszkyA. (2018). The impact of school SES on student achievement: Evidence from U.S. statewide achievement data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718787917
2.
BaileyD. H.DuncanG. J.CunhaF.FoormanB. R.YeagerD. S. (2020). Persistence and fadeout of educational intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(2), 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848
3.
BaileyD. H.DuncanG. J.OdgersC. L.YuW. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459
4.
BloomH. S.RaudenbushS. W.WeissM. J.PorterK. (2017). Using multisite experiments to study cross-site variation in treatment effects: A hybrid approach with fixed intercepts and a random treatment coefficient. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 817–842. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1264518
5.
BryanC. J.TiptonE.YeagerD. S. (2021). Behavioral science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 980–989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3
6.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
7.
CarlsonD.CowenJ. M. (2015). Student neighborhoods, schools, and test score growth: Evidence from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714561801
CinelliC.ForneyA.PearlJ. (2022). A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221099552
10.
ClemensN. H.BoucherA. N.O’DonnellK. (2022). Advances in interventions for students with reading difficulties. In LemonsC. J.PowellS. R.LaneK. L.AcevesT. C. (Eds.), Handbook of Special Education Research: Vol. II. Research-based practices and intervention innovations (pp. 71–82). Routledge.
11.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLI.4.778
12.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. US Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Office of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf
13.
CummingsK. D.StoolmillerM. L.BakerS. K.FienH.Kame’enuiE. J. (2015). Using school-level student achievement to engage in formative evaluation: Comparative school-level rates of oral reading fluency growth conditioned by initial skill for second grade students. Reading and Writing, 28, 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9512-5
14.
DominaT.Pharris-CiurejN.PennerA. M.PennerE. K.BrummetQ.PorterS. R.SanabriaT. (2018). Is Free and reduced-price lunch a valid measure of educational disadvantage?Educational Researcher, 47(9), 539–555. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18797609
15.
ElwertF. (2013). Graphical causal models. In MorganS. L. (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 245–273). Springer.
FienH.AndersonD.NelsonN. J.KennedyP. K.BakerS. K.StoolmillerM. (2018). Examining the impact and school-level predictors of impact variability of an 8th grade reading intervention on at-risk students’ reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 33(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12161
18.
FienH.NelsonN. J.SmolkowskiJ.KostyD.PilgerM.BakerS. K.SmithJ. L. M. (2021). A conceptual replication study of the enhanced core reading instruction MTSS-reading model. Exceptional Children, 87(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920953763
19.
FiglioD. N.LucasM. E. (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. American Economic Review, 94(3), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464489
20.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
21.
HartS. A.SodenB.JohnsonW.SchatschneiderC.TaylorJ. (2013). Expanding the environment: Gene x school-level SES interaction on reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(10), 1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12083
22.
HarwellM.LeBeauB. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10362578
23.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
HuttenlocherJ.WaterfallH.VasilyevaM.VeveaJ.HedgesL. V. (2010). Sources of variability in children’s language growth. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.08.002
26.
KaplanD. (2023). Bayesian statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
27.
KonstantopoulousS.BormanG. (2011). Family background and school effects on student achievement: A multilevel analysis of the Coleman data. Teachers College Record, 113, 97–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300101
28.
LaneK.OakesW. P.BuckmanM. M.MenziesH. M. (2022). Comprehensive, integrated three-tiered models of prevention. In LemonsC. J.PowellS. R.LaneK. L.AcevesT. C. (Eds.), Handbook of Special Education Research: Vol. II. Research-based practices and intervention innovations (pp. 4–18). Routledge.
29.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2013). Exposure to classroom poverty and test score achievement: Contextual effects or selection?American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 9434–9979. https://doi.org/10.1086/668408
MarkovitzC. E.HernandezM. W.HedbergE. C.WhitmoreH. W. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of a volunteer one-on-one tutoring model for early elementary reading intervention: A randomized controlled trial replication study. American Educational Research Journal, 59(4), 788–819. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211066848
32.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.DickeT.GuoJ.ParkerP. D.BasarkodG. (2023). Disentangling long-term compositional effects of school-average achievement and SES: A substantive-methodological synergy. Educational Psychology Review, 35(70), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09726-4
33.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA. A.ReisS. M.LevittH. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.14
34.
McElreathR. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
35.
MellardD.McKnightM.JordanJ. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00319.x
NelsonP. M.KlingbeilD. A.Van NormanE. R. (2020). Ongoing practice opportunities as a method for maintaining reading intervention effects. School Psychology Review, 49(3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1720802
38.
NelsonP. M.KlingbeilD. A.Van NormanE. R.ParkerD. C. (2021). A cluster randomized controlled trial of brief follow-up practice sessions on intervention maintenance. Journal of School Psychology, 88, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.07.003
39.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Statf. 1425. (2002).
Rambo-HernandezK. E.McCoachD. B. (2015). High-achieving and average students’ reading growth: Contrasting school and summer trajectories. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.850398
43.
RaudenbushS. W.WillmsJ. D. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(4), 307–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986020004307
44.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
45.
RobertsG.MohammedS. S.VaughnS. (2010). Reading achievement across three language groups: Growth estimates for overall reading and reading subskills obtained with the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018983
46.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
47.
SharpK.SandersK.NoltemeyerA.HoffmanJ. L.BooneW. J. (2016). The relationship between RTI implementation and reading achievement: A school-level analysis. Preventing School Failure, 60(2), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1063038
48.
SmithJ. L. M.NelsonN. J.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH.KostyD. (2016). Examining the efficacy of multi-tiered intervention for at-risk readers in grade 1. The Elementary School Journal, 16(4), 549–573. https://doi.org/10.1086/686249
49.
SonnescheinS.StapletonL. M.BensonA. (2010). The relation between the type and amount of instruction and growth in children’s reading competencies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 358–389. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209349215
SuggateS. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540
52.
Van NormanE. R.NelsonP. M.KlingbeilD. A. (2020). Profiles of reading performance after exiting Tier 2 intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 57(5), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22354
53.
WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS.GatlinB. (2016). Implementation of tier 2 reading interventions in the primary grades. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 329–342). Springer.
54.
WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS.McMasterK. L. (2019). Intensive reading interventions for the elementary grades. The Guilford Press.
55.
WodtkeG.ParbstM. (2017). Neighborhoods, schools, and academic achievement: A formal mediation analysis of contextual effects on reading and mathematics abilities. Demography, 54, 1653–1676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0603-1
56.
YaremychH. E.PreacherK. J.HedekerD. (2023). Centering categorical predictors in multilevel models: Best practices and interpretation. Psychological Methods, 28(3), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000434
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
