© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 16 To better explain the size of this difference, the adjusted mean posttest scores for both groups are shown below. Table 7 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores for Bridges and Control Groups Study Group N Mean SD Control 228 537.68 58.74 Treatment 233 550.55 60.75 Total 461 544.18 60.04 Students who used the Bridges program had higher adjusted reading scores (M=550.55) than those in the control group (M=537.68), reflecting the significant advantage observed in the previous analysis. Overall Reading Growth Results (All Grades Combined) Question 2 addresses the question of whether ML students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges (treatment group) achieve greater growth in English reading skills than ML students provided with traditional instruction, without Bridges (control group). The reading skills growth achieved by the treatment group (composed of students receiving instruction incorporating Bridges) was compared to the level of reading skills growth achieved by the control group. Using ANCOVA, we compared the reading skills posttest scores (dependent variable) achieved by students in the treatment group (independent variable) and the reading skills posttest scores achieved by the control group (independent variable), adjusting for the pretest scores (covariate). The treatment group (mean=550.55) outperformed the control group receiving traditional instruction (mean=537.68) (F=9.53; df=1/461; p=.002). Reading Growth by Grade Level (Grades 6–8) We then examined the outcomes by grade level. ANCOVA was used to examine the differences in reading skills assessment posttest scores (dependent outcome variable) between the treatment and control groups (independent predictor variable), adjusting for student initial reading ability level (reading skills assessment pretest scores) (covariate). The sample size for this study (total analytic sample N=461) was designed to evaluate the performance of the full group of students. While it is instructive to review the results for specific grade levels, the results with sample sizes fewer than 100 should be reviewed with caution.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUyNzA0NQ==