The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 25 studies reviewed, only one randomized controlled trial met WWC evidence standards; the extent of evidence is rated small for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension, and no eligible studies addressed general reading achievement. → Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007

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

q2 · i? · review · r3

The WWC's review of the evidence base reports that 24 studies failed evidence screens (e.g., inappropriate grade samples, no comparison group, or combined interventions), leaving a single RCT with 79 third-grade students; Appendix A5 rates extent of evidence as small in each domain.

"Twenty-five studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Corrective Reading. One study (Torgesen et al., 2006) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards. The remaining 24 studies did not meet evidence screens."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — related
• No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small — related
• The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — related
• The evidence base for the Lovaas Model is small: only two of 58 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — related
• The evidence base for Open Court Reading© is thin: of 185 identified studies, only two met WWC group design standards, and none met standards for alphabetics or reading fluency — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• The evidence base for Headsprout Early Reading is limited to one small RCT, supporting only a potentially positive rating — related
• Small-group instructional intervention for students struggling in literacy and English language development is supported by six RCTs at moderate evidence level — related
• The evidence base for the program is a single RCT of 3,074 randomly assigned youth, with 1,196 in the follow-up analysis sample, and the WWC rates the extent of evidence as small — related
• The evidence base for the Wilson Reading System in beginning reading is small, with no studies addressing general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain — related