Prior US studies cited in the report suggest RTI has modest positive effects on literacy for transition-age pupils, but the evidence base is mixed and small-scale¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i0 In a cited US randomised study (Vaughn and Fletcher 2012), pupils receiving Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions improved in decoding, fluency and reading comprehension (d = 0.16) compared to Tier 1 only. → Gorard et al. 2014

Evidence¶

Gorard et al. 2014¶

Stephen Gorard, Nadia Siddiqui, Beng Huat See. (2014). Response to Intervention: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581264

q1 · i0 · causal · r1

The report attributes this to Vaughn and Fletcher (2012), an efficacy study of RTI as a remedial intervention for 784 middle school pupils in Grades 6-8; the report notes many Tier 1 only students also received other interventions. Second-hand citation, not read here; the printed effect size d = 0.16 is negligible by the code table.

"Treatment pupils were randomly assigned and those that received both Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions made improvements in decoding, fluency and reading comprehension (d = 0.16) compared to those who only received Tier 1 intervention."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• RTI showed a small positive headline effect of +0.19 on the New Group Reading Test, but the spoilt trial means it should not be taken as indicative of impact — related