Program-specific gains appeared only in isolated t-tests: GRR on reading comprehension and RAVE-O on word-level efficiency measures¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · 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.
q3 i? In t-tests, GRR showed a significant pre-to-post effect on reading comprehension while the other two programs did not. → Sabatini John P. 2011
q3 i? RAVE-O showed significant gains on both Sight Word and Decoding Efficiency while the other two programs did not. → Sabatini John P. 2011 (2)
Evidence¶
Sabatini John P. 2011¶
Sabatini John P., Shore Jane, Holtzman Steven, Scarborough Hollis S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Reading Intervention Programs for Adults with Low Literacy. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269067/
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Results section reports per-program t-tests: "the GRR showed a significant pre to post-test effect on reading comprehension; the other two programs did not." Table 1 shows the GRR Passage Comprehension gain as 4.50 (ES 0.32).
"In t-tests, the GRR showed a significant pre to post-test effect on reading comprehension; the other two programs did not."
Sabatini John P. 2011 (2)¶
Sabatini John P., Shore Jane, Holtzman Steven, Scarborough Hollis S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Reading Intervention Programs for Adults with Low Literacy. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269067/
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Results section reports "The RAVE-O showed significant gains for both Sight Word and Decoding Efficiency; the other two programs did not." Table 1 shows RAVE-O TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency gain of 5.02 (ES 0.32) and Phonemic Decoding gain of 2.78 (ES 0.27).
"The RAVE-O showed significant gains for both Sight Word and Decoding Efficiency; the other two programs did not."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Adults who completed supplemental basic-skills tutoring showed significant pre-to-post gains across a battery of decoding, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension measures — related
- Decoding (Word Attack) showed the strongest gain of the targeted skills, with a moderate effect size of d = .46 overall — related
- Students with LD made statistically significant gains in oral reading fluency on off-grade-level passages but no significant gains on word reading or comprehension standard scores — related
- The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
program-specific-ttest-gains |
title |
Program-specific gains appeared only in isolated t-tests: GRR on reading comprehension and RAVE-O on word-level efficiency measures |
description |
Program-specific gains appeared only in isolated t-tests: GRR on reading comprehension and RAVE-O on word-level efficiency measures |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — sabatini-john-p-2011, sabatini-john-p-2011-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.