The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only one study met WWC evidence standards, based on 128 second-grade students, and the extent of evidence is rated small for fluency and comprehension. → Fluency Formula™ WWC Intervention Report 2007

Evidence¶

Fluency Formula™ WWC Intervention Report 2007¶

Fluency Formula™ WWC Intervention Report. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/fluencyformula/pdfs/FF_EffectivessReport.pdf

q2 · i? · review · r?

WWC synthesis of the evidence base: one randomized controlled trial (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2005) in five schools across two districts, final analyses based on 66 intervention and 62 comparison students; extent of evidence rated small in both reviewed domains (Appendix A6).

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Fluency Formula™ to be small for fluency and comprehension. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed alphabetics or general reading achievement."

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
• Fluency Formula™ shows a positive but statistically non-significant effect on second-grade oral reading fluency (effect size 0.26, improvement index +10) — related
• Fluency effects of Fluency Formula™ differ by initial ability: positive for low-ability students (effect size 0.66) and negative for high-ability students (effect size –0.21), both non-significant — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Fluency Formula™ shows a negative but statistically non-significant effect on second-grade reading comprehension (effect size –0.28, improvement index –11) — 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
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
• The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — 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
• The WWC rated DreamBox Learning as having potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement with a small extent of evidence — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• The evidence base for Headsprout Early Reading is limited to one small RCT, supporting only a potentially positive rating — related
• The evidence base for the program is a single RCT of 3,074 randomly assigned youth, with 1,196 in the follow-up analysis sample, and the WWC rates the extent of evidence as small — related
• Fluency interventions for older students show very small effects on rate and accuracy and virtually no effect on standardized comprehension — related
• Oral word-reading fluency instruction shows a high effect size of 0.66, but evidence rests on a single study — related