Of 305 studies of Fast ForWord reviewed for adolescent learners, two met WWC evidence standards, six met standards with reservations, and 297 met neither¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2010 · 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 i? The evidence base passing WWC screens is small: 8 of 305 reviewed studies met standards with or without reservations. → Fast ForWord® 2010
Evidence¶
Fast ForWord® 2010¶
Fast ForWord®. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: Fast ForWord®, Adolescent Literacy. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/173
q3 · i? · review · r3
The WWC's summary of its literature search through December 2008, covering about 2,000 students aged 5 to 17. The report states "the remaining 297 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens."
"Two of these studies meet WWC evidence standards; six studies meet WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 297 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The extent of evidence for Fast ForWord is small for alphabetics and reading fluency and medium to large for comprehension and general literacy achievement — related
- Fast ForWord has no discernible effects on alphabetics and general literacy achievement and potentially positive effects on reading fluency and comprehension for adolescent learners — related
- In the comprehension domain, one study of Fast ForWord showed statistically significant positive effects, two showed substantively important positive effects, and three showed indeterminate effects — related
- Of 130 studies of school-based OST programs reviewed, 22 studies of 18 different programs met WWC standards or met them with reservations — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The guide's recommendations rest on a screened evidence base of 15 studies meeting WWC group design standards drawn from more than 2,800 citations — related
- All five studies of Fast ForWord in the general literacy achievement domain showed indeterminate effects — related
- The evidence base for Reading Mastery with adolescent learners is small: only 2 of 175 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension — related
- Both studies of Fast ForWord in the alphabetics domain showed indeterminate effects, with no statistically significant or substantively important effects — related
- Only one of seven eligible studies of I CAN Learn® met WWC group design standards, and it met them only with reservations — related
- The WWC improvement indices for Fast ForWord average +2 (alphabetics), +17 (reading fluency), +8 (comprehension), and +3 (general literacy achievement) percentile points — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
fast-forword-evidence-base-305-studies |
title |
Of 305 studies of Fast ForWord reviewed for adolescent learners, two met WWC evidence standards, six met standards with reservations, and 297 met neither |
description |
Of 305 studies of Fast ForWord reviewed for adolescent learners, two met WWC evidence standards, six met standards with reservations, and 297 met neither |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2010 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — fast-forword-2010 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.