The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? No findings in the two studies met WWC group design standards for any adolescent literacy outcome domain other than comprehension, so effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, general literacy achievement, and writing outcomes are unknown. → other-domains-1

Evidence¶

other-domains-1¶

What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2020, April). Web-based Intelligent Tutoring for the Structure Strategy (ITSS). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/703

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

WWC review scope statement: the two qualifying studies reported findings only on comprehension outcomes; no other findings met WWC group design standards within any other outcome domain in the Adolescent Literacy topic area. This is an absence of qualifying evidence, not a measured null effect.

"The effects of ITSS are not known for other outcomes within the adolescent literacy topic area, including alphabetics, reading fluency, general literacy achievement, writing conventions, writing productivity, and writing quality."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — 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
• 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
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• Of 305 studies of Fast ForWord reviewed for adolescent learners, two met WWC evidence standards, six met standards with reservations, and 297 met neither — 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
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• SpellRead™ shows potentially positive effects on alphabetics for adolescent readers, with an average improvement index of +23 across two studies — related