Earobics® has potentially positive effects on reading fluency, with no statistically significant fluency findings¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr1·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · 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.
q3 i2 Two studies presented reading fluency findings; no individual fluency outcome was statistically significant, but the WWC rated the domain as potentially positive based on substantively important positive effects (domain average effect size 0.76). → What Works Clearinghouse 2009
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2009¶
What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). WWC Intervention Report: Earobics®. U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse. https://www.earobics.com
q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r1
WWC synthesis of fluency findings from Cognitive Concepts (2003) and Gale (2006). Appendix A3.2 prints the domain average effect size for reading fluency as 0.76 with an improvement index of +15; individual outcomes were not statistically significant, but the WWC determined positive effects were substantively important.
"Domain average for reading fluency 9 0.76 na +15"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Read Naturally® shows potentially positive effects on writing for students with learning disabilities, with a substantively important but non-significant effect size on the WIAT Written Expression subtest — related
- LiPS shows potentially positive effects on reading fluency: authors found significant effects on GORT–III Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate, but WWC analyses did not confirm significance — related
- The WWC rated Waterford Early Reading Program™ as having potentially positive effects on alphabetics, based on a substantively important average effect size with no statistically significant individual outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on
- Lexia Early Reading shows no significant advantage over Earobics on alphabetics, with several negative effects substantively important — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
earobics-potentially-positive-reading-fluency |
title |
Earobics® has potentially positive effects on reading fluency, with no statistically significant fluency findings |
description |
Earobics® has potentially positive effects on reading fluency, with no statistically significant fluency findings |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2009 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2009 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.