Lexia Early Reading outperforms no supplemental instruction on kindergarten alphabetics outcomes in Gale (2006), significant by author but not WWC calculations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q2·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2009 · 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.
q2 i2 Gale (2006) reported positive and statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading versus no supplemental instruction on kindergarten Initial Sounds Fluency (effect size 1.14) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (effect size 2.85), but WWC calculations found none of these effects statistically significant, though all were positive and substantively important. → What Works Clearinghouse 2009
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2009¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2009). WWC Intervention Report: Lexia Reading, Beginning Reading. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/274
q2 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2
Randomized comparison in Gale (2006) of Lexia Early Reading versus control among at-risk students receiving 20 minutes daily computer-lab practice for 25 days. Kindergarten effect sizes were 1.14 (Initial Sounds Fluency) and 2.85 (Phoneme Segmentation Fluency); the WWC's multiple-comparisons correction made them not statistically significant but substantively important.
"The author reported, and the WWC confirmed, positive and statistically significant effects of Lexia Early Reading for two DIBELS subtests: Initial Sounds Fluency (kindergarten) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (kindergarten)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In a Florida RCT, Earobics® outperformed no-supplement control on several DIBELS subtests but showed no significant advantage over Lexia Early Reading — related
- Lexia Early Reading shows no significant advantage over Earobics on alphabetics, with several negative effects substantively important — related
- Lexia Reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency — related
- Subgroup advantages for low performers and Title I students exceed full-sample effects in two qualifying studies — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lexia-versus-control-kindergarten-alphabetics |
title |
Lexia Early Reading outperforms no supplemental instruction on kindergarten alphabetics outcomes in Gale (2006), significant by author but not WWC calculations |
description |
Lexia Early Reading outperforms no supplemental instruction on kindergarten alphabetics outcomes in Gale (2006), significant by author but not WWC calculations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2009 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2009 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.