Rapid Phonics delivered across the primary-secondary transition showed no significant effect on reading comprehension (primary outcome)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 In an individually randomised trial, intention-to-treat multilevel modelling found no statistically significant intervention effect on NGRT reading comprehension (g = -0.05, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.25). → King 2015

Evidence¶

King 2015¶

King, B., & Kasim, A. (2015). Rapid Phonics Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581293

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Individually randomised two-arm trial with 201 pupils (100 intervention, 101 control) from 22 primary schools; multilevel modelling accounted for school effects. The NGRT effect size was -0.05 (-0.34, 0.25) with 178 pupils analysed, described as "limited benefit in enhancing reading skills".

"Using intention to treat, the multilevel model showed no evidence of significant intervention effects on the primary or secondary outcomes."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Among FSM pupils, Rapid Phonics showed small non-significant effects on single word reading (0.2) and non-word reading (0.3) but not reading comprehension — related
• Rapid Phonics showed a small, statistically non-significant positive effect on non-word reading — related
• Baseline factors of gender, free school meal status and SEN showed no significant moderation of the intervention effect — related
• Rapid Phonics showed no detectable effect on single word reading and no summer fall-back in word reading — related