Claims

Accelerated Reader modestly improves reading scores for Year 7 pupils with weak KS2 English results, with an effect size of +0.24 after 22 weeks

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-11-02 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i1 In a four-school waiting-list RCT, the AR treatment group outperformed the control group on the NGRT overall reading score by about one quarter of a standard deviation (effect size +0.24), equivalent to around three months' additional reading age. → Gorard et al. 2015

Evidence

Gorard et al. 2015

Stephen Gorard, Nadia Siddiqui, Beng Huat See. (2015). Accelerated Reader Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/products/new-group-reading-test/test-detail

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Two-arm post-test-only RCT across four secondary schools; 175 AR pupils versus 164 controls analysed intention-to-treat on NGRT 3A. The report states the treatment group is ahead "by about one quarter of a standard deviation", with printed effect sizes of +0.24 (overall score) and +0.26 (SAS).

"Whether considered in terms of the NGRT overall reading score or the SAS, it is clear that AR has had a modest impact on the treatment group (Tables 4 and 5). The treatment group is ahead of the control by about one quarter of a standard deviation, equivalent to around an extra three months' reading age."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.