The evidence base for EIR® is small: only one of seven reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · 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.
q2 i? Of seven studies reviewed, only Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer (1991), a randomized controlled trial with 59 first-grade students, met WWC evidence standards; the other six failed eligibility screens or standards. → Early Intervention in Reading® 2008
Evidence¶
Early Intervention in Reading® 2008¶
Early Intervention in Reading®. (2008). WWC Intervention Report, What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.earlyinterventioninreading.com
q2 · i? · review · r3
The WWC report's research section states that "Seven studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of EIR®" and only one met evidence standards. The remaining six did not meet standards or eligibility screens, mostly because effects could not be attributed solely to the intervention.
"Seven studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of EIR®. One study (Taylor, Frye, Short, & Shearer, 1991) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- EIR® had a positive, substantively important but statistically non-significant effect on first-grade reading comprehension — related
- EIR® produced statistically significant positive effects on first-grade alphabetics outcomes (segmentation and blending, vowel sounds) — related
- EIR® showed large alphabetics effect sizes and improvement indices of +29 to +42 percentile points in the one qualifying study — related
- The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
eir-small-evidence-base-one-rct |
title |
The evidence base for EIR® is small: only one of seven reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards |
description |
The evidence base for EIR® is small: only one of seven reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2008 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — early-intervention-in-reading-2008 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.