Corrective Reading showed statistically significant positive effects on two of four alphabetics outcomes, but the alphabetics domain average effect was neither significant nor substantively important¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 3 of 3 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Significant positive effects appeared on the WRMT–R word identification subtest (ES 0.22) and TOWRE sight word efficiency subtest (ES 0.30), while phonetic decoding efficiency and word attack were not significant. → Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 q3 i? The average effect size across the four alphabetics outcomes (0.22) was neither statistically significant nor substantively important (greater than 0.25). → Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 (3)

Evidence¶

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007¶

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. (2007). U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

In the Torgesen et al. (2006) randomized controlled trial (79 third-grade students), the WWC alphabetics findings table shows a word identification effect size of 0.22, statistically significant, improvement index +9; the sight word efficiency row shows an effect size of 0.30, statistically significant, index +12, while word attack (0.34) and phonetic decoding efficiency (0.02) were not significant.

"WRMT–R: Word Identification subtest Grade 3 8/79 91.06 (15.00) 87.7 7 (15.00) 3.30 0.22 Statistically significant +9"

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 (2)¶

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. (2007). U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

TOWRE sight word efficiency finding from the same randomized controlled trial's alphabetics table: effect size 0.30, statistically significant at α = 0.05, improvement index +12 favoring Corrective Reading.

"TOWRE: Sight Word Efficiency subtest Grade 3 8/79 90.98 (15.00) 86.41 (15.00) 4.57 0.30 Statistically significant +12"

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 (3)¶

Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. (2007). U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The WWC-computed domain average effect size for alphabetics was 0.22 across the four phonics outcomes in the single study, below the 0.25 substantiative-importance threshold and not statistically significant.

"The average effect size across the four outcomes was neither statistically significant nor large enough to be considered substantively important (that is, an effect size greater than 0.25)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Corrective Reading showed no statistically significant effects on reading comprehension outcomes — related
• Effects of Corrective Reading varied by student subgroup: positive for students with high pretest vocabulary scores and for students not eligible for free/reduced lunch, but not for their counterparts — related
• Four of six standards-meeting studies showed statistically significant positive effects and two showed substantively important positive effects on phonological processing — related
• Most outcomes of Corrective Reading, including state reading tests, did not show positive effects, yielding an average effect size of only +0.06 — related
• Corrective Reading produced a significant positive effect on Woodcock Word Attack (effect size = +0.15) in its only qualifying evaluation — reports the opposite
• REDI effects largely fade by end of kindergarten, with significant positive effects only on TOWRE Phonetic Decoding Efficiency — related
• Kindergarteners using Bridge to Reading showed greater growth in phonological awareness and phonics/word recognition (ES +0.22 each) — related
• Word-reading interventions yield significant positive effects on adolescent literacy outcomes overall (g = 0.30) — related