Claims

Chatterbooks showed no statistically significant effect on reading ability among Year 7 pupils below Level 4, with a slightly negative point estimate

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i0 Chatterbooks had no statistically significant effect on reading ability at second follow-up (Hedges' g = -0.14, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.03), so the effect is indistinguishable from zero. → Styles 2014

Evidence

Styles 2014

Styles, B., Clarkson, R., & Fowler, K. (2014). Chatterbooks: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581155

q3 · i0 · causal · r3

Three-arm pupil-randomised controlled trial in 12 secondary schools; 577 Year 7 pupils randomised to Chatterbooks, Chatterbooks Plus or waitlist control. The primary outcome was the GL Assessment NGRT composite reading score; the Chatterbooks vs control effect size was "-0.14" with a confidence interval passing through zero, based on 159 analysed pupils.

"The headline findings suggest that Chatterbooks and Chatterbooks Plus had a slightly negative impact on reading ability with effect sizes of -0.14 and -0.01 respectively. However, they are not statistically significant, suggesting that the difference in outcomes between the control and intervention group occurred by chance."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

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