Four remedial reading interventions combined improved phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension for third-grade struggling readers one year after the interventions ended, though not on all measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For students in the third-grade cohort, the four interventions combined had statistically significant impacts on phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension one year after the interventions ended, although impacts were not detected on every measure. → Torgesen 2007

Evidence¶

Torgesen 2007¶

Torgesen, J., Schirm, A., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., Stancavage, F., Durno, D., Javorsky, R., and Haan, C. (2007). National Assessment of Title I, Final Report: Volume II: Closing the Reading Gap, Findings from a Randomized Trial of Four Reading Interventions for Striving Readers (NCEE 2008-4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/national-assessment-of-title-i-final-report-volume-ii-closing-the-reading-gap-findings-from-a-randomized-trial-of-four-reading-interventions-for-striving-readers

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Randomized trial in which 50 schools were assigned to four interventions and students within schools were randomly assigned to treatment or control; Table 2 shows a statistically significant Word Attack impact of 5.3 points for all interventions combined in the third-grade cohort. The report states the interventions "had impacts on phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension."

"For students in the third-grade cohort, the four interventions combined had impacts on phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension, although impacts were not detected for all measures of accuracy and fluency or comprehension"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it
• Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Failure Free Reading, the only word-level-plus-comprehension program, showed impacts for third graders but no impacts for fifth graders — related
• For fifth-grade struggling readers, the four interventions combined improved phonemic decoding on one measure but produced a small reduction in oral reading fluency one year after the interventions — related
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related
• The four reading interventions did not improve state assessment (PSSA) scores; for fifth graders they lowered reading and mathematics scores — related
• The interventions narrowed some reading gaps, reducing the Word Attack gap by about two-thirds for third graders and one-half for fifth graders — related
• Younger struggling readers benefited more: the interventions generally helped third-grade cohort students more than fifth-grade cohort students — related
• Reading Recovery targets first-graders in the lowest 20-30% of their cohort after one year of formal schooling — related
• Two years of multicomponent fluency intervention produced greater word-reading and fluency growth than one year or control, with no comprehension differences — related
• During COVID, a third-grade volume-of-reading strategy showed greater reading growth than a control group without the strategy — related
• Grade retention and tracking students into remedial instruction undermine achievement, while formative assessment with acceleration strategies improves learning — related
• The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes — related
• No significant instructional-group effects were detected at the six-month follow-up assessment — related
• A 13-week multicomponent small-group reading intervention did not produce significantly better word reading, comprehension, or fluency outcomes than typical remedial instruction for middle school students with severe reading difficulties — related
• The Power4Kids evaluation covered four widely used reading programs for elementary students with reading problems: Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., and Wilson Reading — related
• A struggling fifth-grade reader with ADHD gained one full grade level in reading over six weeks of iPad-mediated tutoring — related
• A national evaluation design was produced to assess supplemental reading comprehension programs for fifth-grade students — related
• Scaffolded Close Reading Improves Comprehension For Struggling Readers — related
• The Power4Kids first-year report presents impacts on reading achievement at the end of the intervention year, with nearly 800 children in the study — related
• One year after the intervention ended, SpellRead™ effects were not statistically significant on the supplemental Torgesen et al. (2007) outcomes — related
• Remedial reading programs show effects around 0.49 for struggling readers and 0.54 for more severe difficulties — a broader claim this one bears on
• Re-measurement of final test scores after four months of remedial work indicated that classroom use of the Texas reading diagnosis procedures would prove profitable — related