Chatterbooks Plus showed no statistically significant effect on reading ability, with an effect size indistinguishable from zero¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Chatterbooks Plus, which added 15 minutes of dialogic reading per session, had no statistically significant effect on reading ability (Hedges' g = -0.01, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.16). → 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 · r2

Pupil-randomised controlled trial comparing Chatterbooks Plus against a waitlist control on the NGRT composite reading score. The printed effect size was "-0.01" with an estimated zero months' progress and the finding marked "No" for statistical significance, based on 150 analysed pupils.

"Chatterbooks Plus 150 -0.01 (-0.18, 0.16) 0 No"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• An on-treatment dosage analysis found no significant relationship between number of sessions attended and reading outcomes — related
• Chatterbooks showed no statistically significant effect on reading ability among Year 7 pupils below Level 4, with a slightly negative point estimate — related
• Neither intervention showed a statistically significant effect for free-school-meal pupils — related
• Secondary outcomes (sentence completion and passage comprehension subscales) showed no significant effects for either intervention — related
• The Quest programme showed no statistically significant effect on Year 7 reading comprehension, with a small negative point estimate (Hedges g = -0.04) — related
• Neither NGRT secondary outcome (sentence completion or passage comprehension) showed a statistically significant effect of Rhythm for Reading — related