In the Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) trial, no reading measure reached statistical significance, but five of seven effect sizes were substantively important¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The fully compliant randomized trial found no statistically significant effects on any reading achievement measure, though most effect sizes were substantively important by WWC criteria. → Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006

Evidence¶

Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006¶

Enhanced Proactive Reading. (2006). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Randomized controlled trial (91 Hispanic first-grade English language learners, 20 classrooms, four Texas schools) of the program as a supplement to regular reading instruction. Individual effect sizes ranged from 0.06 to 0.42, all reported as ns; the study average effect size was 0.27 with improvement index +10.

"Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) found no statistically significant effects for any reading achievement measures. However, five of the seven effect sizes, as well as the average effect size, were large enough to be considered substantively important using WWC criteria."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Enhanced Proactive Reading has potentially positive effects on reading achievement for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) trial, Enhanced Proactive Reading students significantly outperformed comparison students on Word Attack and Passage Comprehension — related
• Enhanced Proactive Reading shows no discernible effects on English language development — related
• Supplemental Reading Mastery instruction showed substantively important immediate effects on four of five reading measures for English language learners, none statistically significant — related
• The Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006) study showed a substantively important positive average alphabetics effect, while Hecht (2003) did not — related
• PALS has potentially positive effects on reading achievement for English language learners, with a combined effect size of 0.31 but no statistically significant effects on individual measures — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Supplemental first-grade interventions for ELLs improved phonological and word-level skills but not comprehension, with comprehension gains emerging at one-year follow-up — related
• Interventions targeting SRL or EF show little evidence of far transfer to the other construct — related