Reading Buddy Intervention 1 Running Head: R B Imason.gmu.edu/~massaf/portfolio/PDFfiles/EDRS 811...

Reading Buddy Intervention 1

Running Head: READING BUDDY INTERVENTION

Reading Buddy Intervention: Investigate the impact of reading buddy groups on 3rd

grade student DRA-Reading scores

Mona M Assaf

George Mason University

EDRS 811-Spring 2008

Dr. Dimiter Dimitrov, Professor


Reading Buddy Intervention: Investigate the impact of reading buddy groups on 3rd

grade student DRA-Reading scores

How can emergent readers begin to love reading? Since reading is a complex human

phenomenon, no simple answer exists to this question that has lead to much research in

numerous research fields, almost every field of study has looked to explain this amazing human

phenomena. In the elementary years learning to read plus gaining fluency, speed,

comprehension, and a joy of reading are significant developmental milestones (Gleason, 2001).

Even though the current educational environment relies heavily on standards and standardized

assessments, educators have long understood that reading must be viewed as a pleasure and

allowed to occur in low stress environments (May, 1998; Peregoy & Boyle, 2001; Routman,

2000; Vygotsky, 1978). A student’s ability to read is acquired through many different activities,

such as; independent reading (reading alone), read-alouds (material is read to the student), and

shared reading (two individuals of similar reading levels take turns reading the same material).

The Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (2001) encourages teachers to

develop an understanding that reading strategies must be repeated during the course of the

student’s school day in different settings in order for the skills to become a part of the student’s

reading rapport. One of the most important factors in increasing student reading skills is

motivation; students need to see the purpose and benefits from reading (Wigfield & Guthrie,

1997).

Reading buddy programs (shared reading) have typically used the technique of pairing

students who have opposite reading skills, such as a primary reader with an advanced reader.

This technique is the model suggested in Guided Reading: Good first teaching for all children

due to the fact that it provides an environment in which student reading skills can be scaffolded


by peers. Reading buddy programs are defined as reading groups that are teacher selected by

skill level typically between younger and older readers (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Previous

studies operated on the assumption that both members of the dyad demonstrate reading skills. In

Wright and Cleary (2006) the pairing was between third and fourth grade students. Teachers

supervised the groups but did not provide any direct instruction or guidance beyond pre-selecting

the pairs, logistics and behavior guidelines for the sessions. In all previous studies, the students

reading levels increased for the younger group, yet the reading levels for older students did not

see the same significant increase as the younger students (Wright & Cleary, 2006). Therefore,

the research shows that reading buddy programs are worthwhile for younger students in the

“buddy” pair, yet may not provide any significant “new” skills for the older students. In order to

encourage teachers to invest in and develop reading buddy programs, it is necessary to conduct

research that demonstrates the possibility of increasing both the younger and older student

reading skills.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the study was to replicate and extend the research conducted in Wright and

Cleary’s 2006 study, “Kids in the Tutor Seat: Building schools’ capacity to help struggling

readers through a cross-age tutoring program", as well as address different research questions. In

the 2006 study, 3rd

grade students were paired with 4th

grade students, plus teachers did not plan

for the group meeting nor did they provide any direct instruction (Wright & Cleary, 2006). The

current study looked at the effects of pairing younger (3rd

grade) with older more experienced

readers (6th

grade). In addition the study investigated the impact planned reading strategy

instruction had on the students involved in the various types of reading buddy groups (Treatment

1-Experimental with Intervention). The purpose of this study was to explore if the added


teaming and planning by teachers influenced 3rd

grade student reading abilities. The outcomes of

the reading buddy intervention study demonstrated the effects these different variables had on

DRA-Reading scores.

Research Questions and Hypothesis

This study was employed to establish the impact of various types of reading buddy styles of

instruction on student DRA-Reading scores. In addition the relationship between DRA-Reading

and DRA-Fluency scores was examined. Three research questions were established based on

previous research, the need to demonstrate the impact of the various reading buddy strategies on

student DRA-Reading scores, and to investigate the impact of gender on student performance

with the various reading buddy types of instruction.

Research Question 1:

Are there differences in post-test DRA-Reading scores across the three different types of buddy

reading groups after controlling for pre-test scores? Is there an interaction between type of

reading buddy group and gender on post-test reading scores controlling for pre-test scores? This

question was addressed by using a three-by-two ANCOVA with pre-test scores as the covariate.

It was hypothesized that there were differences in effect between the three types of reading

buddy groups, but no interaction for gender and no interaction effect between type of reading

buddy group and gender. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that students in the reading buddy

group that received the intervention would outperform students in the other types of reading

groups.


Are there differences in the changes in student DRA reading post-test reading scores across the

three different types of reading buddy groups? Do such differences differ according to gender?


This question was addressed using a three-by-two ANOVA on gain scores. It was hypothesized

that there was an effect between types of reading buddy groups regardless of gender; and that

both would benefit from any reading buddy group but especially from the reading buddy group

with teacher participation.


Do DRA-Fluency, pre-test DRA-Reading score, and gender predict student post-test DRA-

Reading scores? Multiple regression was used to address this question. It was predicted that

DRA-Fluency and pre-test DRA-Reading scores would have an effect on DRA-Reading.

Method

Data and Sample

Three 3rd

grade classes participated in this study. Study students were assigned to one of

three classrooms twenty in each group. The public school in which the study was conducted

followed a ‘modified’ calendar’. Modified calendar schools have additional days of instruction

and students begin school the first week in August and finish the third week in June. Each class

had equal distribution of boys and girls, therefore each class had 10 boys and 10 girls. The

descriptive statistics of the sample is provided in Table 1.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Insert Table 1 about here

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dependent Measures

Norm reference test. The DRA test is a nationally recognized reading developmental

assessment. It assesses student language and literacy skills in one-on-one setting, using leveled

reading material and scripted comprehension question. The original validity testing on the


testing materials was done between 1988 and 1996, in Upper Arlington City School District in

Ohio (Beaver, 1997). The DRA was administered twice throughout the school year (pre-test

first two-weeks and post-test last two-weeks of school). DRA scores are broken down into

several categories, for the purposes of this study only Reading and Fluency scores were

analyzed.

Materials

Treatment 1, reading buddy with intervention, required ten big books with a set of ten

matching student books to be used during each buddy meeting. All treatment groups received

two sets of DRA test booklets and a schedule for completing the assessment.

Procedure

Reading Buddy with Intervention

Teachers were required to attend a three hour training session to introduce them to how

the intervention worked. In addition this group was given weekly, thirty minute planning session

with each other, during which time they were to plan the focus book and the strategy they would

introduce. This reading buddy group met weekly for one thirty minute sessions. Prior to the

meeting of the students the two teachers planned together what book they would be covering and

what specific reading strategy they would model and emphasize. In addition during these

planning times teachers discussed student groupings and made adjustments as needed. This

group met in one of the two classrooms. During buddy reading time the two teachers circulated

and supported the children with the specific strategy. Teachers were to be engaged with students

at all times.


Reading Buddy without Intervention

For the experimental without intervention (Treatment 2), there was very little preparation.

Teachers were asked to conduct the reading buddy program the way they knew how to do it. At

the beginning of the project the researcher and the teachers met for half-an-hour to discuss what

the teachers knew about reading buddy programs. This group conducted their reading buddy

group in the traditional manner. The sole request of the researcher was that the group meet

weekly for one thirty minute session. This group choose to meet in a large common area located

between several grade levels. Teachers were not encouraged to plan nor did they interact with

students during the buddy reading time and no specific reading strategies were discussed or

taught. Students were allowed to buddy read with whomever they wanted.

Control

This class did not include any type of buddy reading group. The teacher continued on

with instruction in a traditional way with no reading buddy groups.

Design and Data Analysis

In order to answer the three research questions the following statistical analyses were

conducted: three-by-two analysis of covariance ANCOVA, three-by-two way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) on gain scores, and multiple regression.

Analysis of covariance ANCOVA. To investigate differences between treatment groups

on post-test DRA-Reading scores adjusted means, a three-by-two way analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) was conducted using pre-test scores as the covariate. Prior to conducing ANCOVA,

a preliminary test for equal slopes was conducted to ensure there was no interaction between

gender, type of reading buddy group, and the covariate (pre-test) scores. In addition, an analysis


of correlations between pre and post-test DRA-Reading scores was conducted to ensure that pre-

test DRA-Reading scores could be used as the covariate.

Three-by-two way ANOVA. Gain scores were used to explore the differences in student

DRA-Reading scores across the three treatment groups (reading buddy groups with intervention

vs. reading buddy groups without intervention vs. control-no reading buddy groups), and gender.

Gain scores were used as the dependent variable with gender and treatment group as the two

fixed factors.

Multiple regression. A multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate if pre-

test DRA-Reading scores, DRA-Fluency scores, and gender were predictors of post-test DRA-

Reading scores (dependent variable).

Results

Prior to the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) a correlation analyses was run in order to

verify that there was a statistically significant relationship between pre and post test DRA-

Reading scores. The results showed a moderate statistically significant positive correlation

between pre-test and post-test DRA-Reading scores, R (n=60)= .581, p=.000 (See Appendix A).

Analysis of covariance ANCOVA. The preliminary test for equal slopes showed that the

assumption for equal slopes was met for type of reading buddy intervention, F (2,54)=2.174,

p=.124. Analysis of covariance indicated a statistically significant difference among reading

buddy intervention groups on post-test DRA-Reading scores (y) after controlling for pre-test

DRA-Reading scores (x), F (2, 56)= 79.913, p=.000. However, the difference in gender was not

statistically significant, F(1,53)=.80, p=.376. In addition, there was no interaction effect between

type of reading buddy group and gender on post-test DRA-Reading scores after controlling for

pre-test DRA-Reading scores, F(2,53)=.63, p=.534. See Table 2.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Post hoc Tukey analysis on adjusted means was conducted to detect differences among

reading buddy intervention groups after controlling for pre-test DRA-Reading scores. The

results showed a statistically significant difference between Treatment 1 (reading buddy with

intervention) and Treatment 2 (reading buddy without intervention), p=.000. Further, the 95

percent confidence interval indicated that students in Treatment 1 out performed students in

Treatment 2 by at least 2.78 points but not more than 4.69 points on the DRA reading

assessment. In addition, Treatment 1 and Treatment 3 (control) showed a statistically significant

difference (p=.000). The 95 percent confidence interval showed that Treatment 1 out performed

Treatment 3 by at 5.02 but not more than 6.93 points on the DRA reading assessment. Finally

Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 had a statistically significant difference (p=.000). Further, the 95

percent confidence interval demonstrated that Treatment 2 out performed Treatment 3 by at least

1.28 but not more than 3.20 points on the DRA reading assessment.

Three-by-two way ANOVA. Student gain on DRA-Reading scores across the three

reading buddy groups (treatment) was analyzed with a 3 (treatment) x 2 (student gender)

ANOVA. Gain scores were used as the dependent variable, with gender and type of reading

intervention as the two fixed factors. The analysis yielded statistically significant change on

treatment only, F (2, 54)=64.20, p=.000. For gender and gender combined with treatment no

statistically significant interaction was found (p=.378 and .521 respectively). See Table 3.


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The post hoc test showed statistically significant differences in gain scores among all

Treatment 1 (reading buddy with intervention), Treatment 2 (reading buddy without

intervention), and control (p=.000). Specifically, the 95 percent confidence interval

demonstrated that Treatment 1 outperformed Treatment 2, by at least 2.48 but not more than

5.02. Treatment 1 also outperformed Treatment 3 (control), by at least 4.68 but not more than

7.22. In addition, Treatment 2 outperformed the Treatment 3, by at least .93 but not more than

3.47.

In addition, Figure 1 demonstrates that the reading buddy group with the intervention

outperformed the other two groups. It shows that students involved in either reading buddy

groups benefited from the intervention. Finally, students involved in traditional instruction with

no reading buddy groups benefited the least.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Insert Figure 1 about here

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Multiple regression. The results showed a statistically significant explanation of the

variance in post-test DRA-Reading scores (y) from the variances in pre-test DRA-Reading scores

(x1), DRA-Fluency scores (x2), and gender (x3), F(3, 56)=39.447, p=.000. Further, R2=.679

indicated that 67.9% of the variance in post-test DRA-Reading scores was explained by post-test

DRA-Reading scores, DRA-Fluency scores and gender. Also, pre-test DRA-Reading scores and

DRA-Fluency scores had a statistically significant unique contribution (p=.000). However, this


was not the case with gender (p=.152). The predication equation is

Therefore, a student who received a pre-test score

of 40 on the DRA reading test, is a female and received a DRA-Fluency score of 60 could be

expected to receive 56.92 on the post-test DRA reading test. See Table 4.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

There were outliers on post-test DRA (y) reading scores since the min and max values of

studentized deleted residual (-2.52 and 3.835 respectively) was higher than 3.0 in absolute value.

However, there were no influential data points since the max value of the Cook’s distance was

not greater than 1 (.129). Plus there were no outliers in pre-test DRA-Reading scores (x1),

fluency scores (x2) or gender (x3), since the calculated Centered Leverage Value (.20) was greater

than the reported values (.017 and .154 respectively).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the impact of reading buddy groups

especially in support of reading buddy groups in which the teachers plan, incorporate reading

strategy instruction, and are purposeful in the time spent during reading buddy groups. This

study showed that both males and females benefited equally from either of the reading buddy

interventions. A three-by-two way analysis of the covariance was conducted to examine

differences between intervention groups on post-test DRA-Reading scores after controlling for

pre-test DRA score variations. Furthermore, post hoc analyses on adjusted means were

conducted to detect differences among types of reading buddy groups. A three-by-two ANOVA

on gain scores was used to examine differences in student DRA reading score gains across the


three types on reading buddy groups, and gender. Finally, a multiple regression analysis was

used to identify which factors predict DRA-Reading scores.

The findings confirmed many of the hypothesis addressed in this study such that gender

does not have an impact on type of reading buddy group students benefit from. Therefore males

and females both benefited from the intervention reading buddy group above a ‘traditional’

reading buddy group and that both types of reading buddy groups raised student DRA-Reading

scores above no reading buddy group. It was also shown that pre-test DRA-Reading scores and

DRA-Fluency scores were predictors of student post-test DRA scores but that gender was not.

Conclusions

Reading buddy groups provide reading instruction that is beneficial to students when

teachers invest in them. Planning and purposeful instruction during reading buddy sessions

increases student achievement on reading assessments. Therefore teachers should be supported

through training and materials needed to institute such types of reading buddy groups.

Unfortunately one limitation of this study was that it only looked at the impact on the younger

member of the buddy reading group (3rd

grade). In order to solidify the use and investment in

this type of instruction it would be necessary to demonstrate that the older members of the

reading buddy pair also benefits (6th

grade). As schools continue to place added emphasis on

reading and raising reading assessment scores reading buddies with purposeful instruction

provides both reinforcement and repetition of necessary reading skills.


References

Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental reading assessment: Resource guide. Parsippany, NJ:

Celebration.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gleason, J. B. (2001). The development of language (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

May, F. B. (1998). Reading as communication: To help children write and read (5th

ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, learning in ESL: A resource book for

K-12 teachers (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.

Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools’ capacity to help

struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools,

43, 99-107.


Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Variance.

N s s2

Pre-Test (Pre) 60 19.13 2.76 7.64

Post-Test (Post) 60 29.80 3.55 12.60

Gender (G) 60 1.50 .50 .25

Treatment (T) 60 2.00 .82 .68

Fluency (F) 60 35.20 5.17 26.70


Table 2.

Analysis of Covariance for Post-Test Scores

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects

Pre-Test (Pre) 245.51 1 245.51 105.81 .000

Gender (G) 1.85 1 1.85 .80 .376

Treatment (T) 367.12 2 183.56 79.11 .000

G x T 2.95 2 1.47 .63 .534

Error 122.98 53 2.32


Table 3.

Analysis of Variance for Gain Scores

Source SS df MS F p

Between subjects

Treatment (T) 364.58 2 182.29 64.20 .000

Gender (G) 2.25 1 2.25 .79 .378

T x G 3.75 2 1.88 .66 .521

error 153.33 54 2.84


Table 4.

Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post-Test Reading Score (N=60)

B SE B β

Constant 1.36 2.75

Pre-Test (Pre) .80 .10 .62

Gender (G) -.78 .54 -.11*

Fluency (F) .41 .05 .59

Note. R2=.68; *p<.05.


Figure 1. Estimated marginal means of gain scores.


Appendix A

Descriptive statistics SPSS printout

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Treatment 60 1 3 2.00 .823 .678

Gender 60 1 2 1.50 .504 .254

Pre_Test 60 14 25 19.13 2.765 7.643

Post_Test 60 25 38 29.80 3.550 12.603

flu_score 60 25 46 35.20 5.168 26.705

Valid N (listwise) 60


Appendix B

Correlation SPSS printout

Correlations

1 .581**

.000

60 60

.581** 1

.000

60 60

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pre_Test

Post_Test

Pre_Test Post_Test

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.


Appendix C

ANCOVA preliminary test for equal slopes SPSS printout

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label N

Treatment 1 Exp with

intervention 20

2 Exp without

intervention 20

3 Control 20

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable:Post_Test

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 625.370a 5 125.074 57.126 .000

Intercept 297.309 1 297.309 135.792 .000

treatment .155 2 .078 .035 .965

pre_test 180.844 1 180.844 82.599 .000

treatment * pre_test 9.518 2 4.759 2.174 .124

Error 118.230 54 2.189

Total 54026.000 60

Corrected Total 743.600 59

a. R Squared = .841 (Adjusted R Squared = .826)


Appendix D

ANCOVA using pre-test as covariate SPSS printout



Source

Type III Sum of



Intercept 293.339 1 293.339 126.420 .000

pre_test 245.508 1 245.508 105.806 .000

Gender 1.847 1 1.847 .796 .376

treatment 367.119 2 183.559 79.108 .000

Gender * treatment 2.948 2 1.474 .635 .534

Error 122.979 53 2.320

Total 54026.000 60




Appendix E

Post Hoc on adjusted means SPSS printout

Custom Hypothesis Tests #1

Contrast Results (K Matrix)a

Contrast

Dependent

Variable

Post_Test

L1 Contrast Estimate 3.737

Hypothesized Value 0

Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) 3.737

Std. Error .478

Sig. .000

95% Confidence Interval for

Difference

Lower Bound 2.780

Upper Bound 4.694

a. Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: treatment 1 vs

treatment 2

Test Results


Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Contrast 139.627 1 139.627 61.207 .000

Error 127.748 56 2.281




Contrast

Dependent

Variable

Post_Test




Std. Error .478

Sig. .000


Difference

Lower Bound 5.020

Upper Bound 6.933


treatment 3

Test Results



Contrast 357.101 1 357.101 156.540 .000

Error 127.748 56 2.281




Contrast

Dependent

Variable

Post_Test




Std. Error .478

Sig. .000


Difference

Lower Bound 1.283

Upper Bound 3.197


treatment 3

Test Results



Contrast 50.137 1 50.137 21.978 .000

Error 127.748 56 2.281


Appendix F

ANOVA on gain score SPSS printout


Dependent Variable:GAIN

Source

Type III Sum of



Intercept 6774.797 1 6774.797 2385.986 .000

Treatment 364.582 2 182.291 64.200 .000

Gender 2.246 1 2.246 .791 .378

treatment * Gender 3.753 2 1.876 .661 .521

Error 153.328 54 2.839

Total 7348.000 60



Multiple Comparisons

GAIN

Tukey HSD

(I) Treatment (J) Treatment

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Exp with intervention Exp without intervention 3.75* .529 .000 2.48 5.02

Control 5.95* .529 .000 4.68 7.22

Exp without intervention Exp with intervention -3.75* .529 .000 -5.02 -2.48

Control 2.20* .529 .000 .93 3.47

Control Exp with intervention -5.95* .529 .000 -7.22 -4.68

Exp without intervention -2.20* .529 .000 -3.47 -.93

Based on observed means.

The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 2.795.

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Appendix G

Multiple regression SPSS printout

Model Summary

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .824a .679 .662 2.065

a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Pre_Test, flu_score

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 504.747 3 168.249 39.447 .000a

Residual 238.853 56 4.265

Total 743.600 59

a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Pre_Test, flu_score

b. Dependent Variable: Post_Test

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.364 2.747 .497 .621

Pre_Test .798 .098 .622 8.187 .000

flu_score .407 .053 .593 7.707 .000

Gender -.785 .541 -.112 -1.452 .152

a. Dependent Variable: Post_Test


Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 24.37 38.07 29.80 2.925 60

Std. Predicted Value -1.857 2.827 .000 1.000 60

Standard Error of Predicted

Value .378 .852 .520 .118 60

Adjusted Predicted Value 24.30 38.08 29.80 2.945 60

Residual -4.293 6.950 .000 2.012 60

Std. Residual -2.079 3.365 .000 .974 60

Stud. Residual -2.174 3.437 .000 1.005 60

Deleted Residual -4.696 7.252 .001 2.142 60

Stud. Deleted Residual -2.252 3.835 .010 1.046 60

Mahal. Distance .989 9.066 2.950 1.898 60

Cook's Distance .000 .129 .016 .029 60

Centered Leverage Value .017 .154 .050 .032 60

a. Dependent Variable: Post_Test

Reading Buddy Intervention 1 Running Head: R B Imason.gmu.edu/~massaf/portfolio/PDFfiles/EDRS 811...

Documents

Transcript of Reading Buddy Intervention 1 Running Head: R B Imason.gmu.edu/~massaf/portfolio/PDFfiles/EDRS 811...