The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q2 i? Only one study met WWC evidence standards, covering only general reading achievement; no studies meeting standards addressed alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension. → ClassWide Peer Tutoring: WWC Intervention Report 2007
Evidence¶
ClassWide Peer Tutoring: WWC Intervention Report 2007¶
ClassWide Peer Tutoring: WWC Intervention Report. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.jgcp.ku.edu
q2 · i? · review · r2
WWC extent-of-evidence categorization across twelve reviewed studies, of which one met standards (six schools, 218 students). Appendix A5 lists zero studies for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension domains.
"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for CWPT to be small for general reading achievement. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — 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 Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
- The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — 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
- Only three of twelve identified OLI studies met WWC group design standards — related
- The evidence base for the Wilson Reading System in beginning reading is small, with no studies addressing general reading achievement — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cwpt-evidence-base-small-reading-domains |
title |
The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension |
description |
The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2007 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — classwide-peer-tutoring-wwc-intervention-report-2007 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.