© 2025 Vista Higher Learning Vista’s Bridges: A Study of Reading Growth in MLs 20 Table 12 Adjusted Mean iReady Reading Posttest Scores by Race (White/Non-White) and Study Group Study Group Race N Mean SD Control Non-White 12 527.00 76.137 Control White 216 538.27 57.785 Total 228 537.68 58.735 Treatment Non-White 15 572.47 51.321 Treatment White 218 549.04 61.156 Total 233 550.55 60.749 Total Non-White 27 552.26 66.339 Total White 434 543.68 59.678 Total 461 544.18 60.043 Students from both racial groups demonstrated similar patterns of growth, indicating that Bridges supports reading progress across diverse student populations. Comparison by Economic Status The main effect for study group was reconfirmed, with the treatment group using Bridges outperforming the control group (F=9.2; df=1/461; p=.003). There was a significant interaction between study group membership and eligibility for free or reduced-cost lunch (F=4.05; df=1/461; p=.045). The pairwise comparisons revealed that students eligible for free lunch in the treatment group that received instruction using Bridges (mean=542.47) showed significantly greater growth than students eligible for free lunch in the control group receiving traditional instruction without using Bridges (mean=530.24). This 12-point difference represents an effect size of .20 (Cohen’s d). This result suggests that Bridges was more effective in providing instruction for students of lower economic status. The ANCOVA results below show whether the relationship between instructional group and reading growth differed by students’ economic status.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUyNzA0NQ==