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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Corrective Reading had a statistically significant positive effect on alphabetics for students with high pretest PPVT scores and no effects for students with low pretest PPVT scores. → Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 q2 i? Statistically significant positive effects on TOWRE sight word efficiency and oral fluency appeared for students not eligible for free/reduced lunch but not for eligible students. → Corrective Reading—What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report 2007 (2) q2 i? No differences were found for alphabetics or fluency outcomes as a function of students' initial word attack scores. → 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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Subgroup analyses by initial skill level and socioeconomic status reported in the footnotes to the WWC findings tables for the Torgesen et al. (2006) trial; no effect sizes are printed for the subgroup contrasts.

"The study reported that Corrective Reading had a statistically significant positive effect on alphabetics for students with high pretest PPVT scores and no effects on students with low pretest PPVT scores."

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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Socioeconomic-status subgroup analysis from the same trial, reported in the alphabetics findings footnote; the fluency footnote reports the same pattern for the Oral Fluency Test. No subgroup effect sizes are printed.

"An additional subgroup analysis found statistically significant positive effects on the TOWRE sight word efficiency subtest for students not eligible for the free/reduced lunch program, but not for students eligible for the free/reduced lunch program."

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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Initial-skill-level subgroup analysis reported in the alphabetics findings footnote of the WWC report; the fluency footnote likewise states no differences between initial skill level subgroups for fluency.

"The study found no differences for alphabetics outcomes as a function of students’ initial level of word attack scores."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — related
• Word attack gains from the Wilson Reading System were concentrated among students with high initial word attack or vocabulary scores and students not eligible for free/reduced lunch — related
• The interventions did not consistently benefit any baseline subgroup more than another — reports the opposite
• The Power4Kids evaluation covered four widely used reading programs for elementary students with reading problems: Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., and Wilson Reading — related