The interventions did not consistently benefit any baseline subgroup more than another¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across subgroups defined by initial word attack skills, beginning vocabulary scores, and lunch-program eligibility, the interventions did not consistently benefit one subgroup more than another. → 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 · r3

The report estimated impacts for subgroups including students with weak and strong initial word attack skills, low or high beginning vocabulary scores, and students who did or did not qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, finding no consistent subgroup advantage. No subgroup effect sizes are printed in the text provided.

"However, the interventions did not consistently benefit any one subgroup more than another."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Word attack gains from the Wilson Reading System were concentrated among students with high initial word attack or vocabulary scores and students not eligible for free/reduced lunch — reports the opposite
• Effects of Corrective Reading varied by student subgroup: positive for students with high pretest vocabulary scores and for students not eligible for free/reduced lunch, but not for their counterparts — reports the opposite
• The impact of FAST did not differ significantly by student subgroups or school characteristics in the RCT — related
• Subgroup analysis indicates notable growth for students from traditionally underserved groups, such as those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch — 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
• Negative effects of mid-year entry are somewhat larger for Asian students and students not qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch — related