Steps"UURC Research Base
A robust body of empirical evidence undergirds UURC assessments and intervention models. In addition, the UURC regularly collects and analyzes data related to student and educator performance.
Insights gleaned from these research efforts, along with insights gleaned from professional research journals and conferences guide revisions of UURC assessments and research models.
Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM are evidence-based with 0.5 - 1.2 effect sizes
Early StepsSM
Evaluation: Evidence for well-designed and implemented studies demonstrating the efficacy of the curriculum (0.4 effect size or higher).
- Brown, K.J., Fields, M.K., Craig, G.T., & Robbins, K.P. (2018, July). Longitudinal replication of a Tier II intervention model for struggling readers across grades 1 - 12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Brighton, UK.
- Longitudinal study demonstrating efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM across 14 years of intervention.
Notice effect sizes ranging from .84-1.07.
- Longitudinal study demonstrating efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM across 14 years of intervention.
- Morris, D. (2006). Using noncertified tutors to work with at-risk readers: An evidence-based model. Elementary School Journal, 106 (4), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1086/503636.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect sizes ranging from .30-1.12.
[Note that this study includes students that worked in both Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM and the curricula are referred to as Howard Street in this study.]
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
- Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., Fletcher, J.M., Anthony, J.L., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (2), 148-182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect sizes ranging from .39-.60.
[Note that the Early StepsSM curriculum is referred to as Responsive Reading in this study.]
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
- Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 681-693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.681.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect sizes ranging from .42-.94.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
- Santa, C. & Høien, T. (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A program for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (1), 54-79. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.1.4.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect sizes ranging from .50-.70; 1.0-1.8 for high-risk children [lowest pretest scores].
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
- Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., & Richards, H.C. (1997). At-risk readers and community volunteers: A 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies in Reading, 1 (3), 277-300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_6.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect size of 1.29.
[Note that the Early StepsSM curriculum is referred to as Book Buddies in this study.]
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Next StepsSM
Evaluation: Evidence for well-designed and implemented studies demonstrating the efficacy of the curriculum.
- Brown, K.J., Fields, M.K., Craig, G.T., & Robbins, K.P. (2018, July). Longitudinal replication of a Tier II intervention model for struggling readers across grades 1 - 12. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Brighton, UK.
- Longitudinal study demonstrating efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM across 14 years of intervention.
Notice effect sizes ranging from .51-1.18.
- Longitudinal study demonstrating efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM across 14 years of intervention.
- Morris, D. (2006). Using noncertified tutors to work with at-risk readers: An evidence-based model. Elementary School Journal, 106 (4), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1086/503636.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
Notice effect sizes ranging from .30-1.12.
[Note that this study includes students that worked in both Early StepsSM and Next StepsSM and the curricula are referred to as Howard Street in this study.]
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Early StepsSM and Next StepsSMincluding key components of comprehension, fluency, word study (i.e., PA, phonics, spelling, high frequency words).
- Brown, K.J., Morris, D., & Fields, M.K. (2005). Intervention after grade one: Serving increased numbers of struggling readers effectively. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (1), 61-94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3701_3.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM. Significant differences in gain scores between comparison and treatment groups were reported for word recognition, passage reading, pseudoword reading, and spelling, with the Next StepsSM group outperforming the comparison group in all areas. Treatment effects ranged from .51 to 1.18.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM. Significant differences in gain scores between comparison and treatment groups were reported for word recognition, passage reading, pseudoword reading, and spelling, with the Next StepsSM group outperforming the comparison group in all areas. Treatment effects ranged from .51 to 1.18.
- Brown, K.J., Morris, R.D., Fields, M.K., Lowe, S., Skidmore, D. Van Gorder, D., Weinstein, C., Robertson, J., & Brock,U. (2003, June). The Virginia Intervention Model: Evaluating its effectiveness for struggling readers who speak English as a second language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Boulder, CO. [PowerPoint format.]
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM for students who classified as ELL. No significant differences were found for intervention delivery by certified educators or paraeducators. Treatment effects ranged from .54 to .81.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM for students who classified as ELL. No significant differences were found for intervention delivery by certified educators or paraeducators. Treatment effects ranged from .54 to .81.
- Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91 (2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1086/461642.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study. Significant differences in gain scores between comparison and treatment groups were reported for word recognition, passage reading and spelling, with the treatment group outperforming the comparison group in all areas.
- Quasi-random experiment evaluating the efficacy of Next StepsSM including key components of comprehension, fluency, word study. Significant differences in gain scores between comparison and treatment groups were reported for word recognition, passage reading and spelling, with the treatment group outperforming the comparison group in all areas.
Higher StepsSM
Evaluation: Evidence for well-designed and implemented studies demonstrating the efficacy of the curriculum.
- Opatz, M.O. & Kocherhans, S. (2023). Using a supplemental, multicomponent reading intervention to increase adolescent readers' achievement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 67 (5), 294-302. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1333.
- Study demonstrating efficacy of Higher StepsSM with seventh graders.
Treatment effects ranged from .59-1.37.
- Study demonstrating efficacy of Higher StepsSM with seventh graders.
