National testing standards have increased pressure on school personnel to identify and implement instructional practices that facilitate the academic achievement of at-risk students. No Child Left Behind legislation currently mandates that reading programs at the middle school level receiving federal funding must use scientifically validated reading interventions. Evaluation of scientifically based interventions is needed. The purpose of this study was to compare reading achievement, motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy of sixth-grade students enrolled in Scholastic's "Read 180" intervention to a controlled group of sixth-grade students receiving traditional language arts instruction. Three hundred and seventy nine sixth-grade students in two middle schools participated in the study. The Maryland School Assessment (MSA) and the Scholastic Independent Reader (SIR) survey were the instruments used in this study. The experimental design was a control-versus-experimental group comparison of pre-test/post-test MSA reading test scores. The control group received traditional language arts instruction while the experimental group followed Scholastic's "Read 180" curriculum. An ANOVA found significant differences between the two reading programs (F = 5.3, p less than 0.022). The control group's MSA scores increased significantly more than the "Read 180" group. However, the ANOVA revealed no significant differences between schools (F = 0.043, p = 0.094). Follow-up t-tests by school and reading groups found that there were no significant differences between reading programs at School A. In fact, the control group performed only slightly better (7.35 scale score points) than the "Read 180" students (5.23 scale score points), but this difference was not statistically significant. At School B, the difference between reading groups was statistically significant (t = 2.85, p less than 0.007). The control group students increased their test scores 12.4 scale score points, while the "Read 180" students' scores decreased by 1.26 points. Scholastic Independent Reader survey scores were examined using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This technique revealed that there were no significant differences between reading groups (F[subscript 1, 78] = 1.57, p = 0.214); or between schools (F[subscript 1, 78]= 0.05, p = 0.821). Even though SIR results revealed no significant differences between reading groups or schools, MSA results were mixed with statistically significant differences noted between students involved in the "Read 180" program and the comparison group. Results indicated that the effectiveness of "Read 180" to increase academic achievement varied across the two schools. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]