Rapid Phonics showed a small, statistically non-significant positive effect on non-word reading¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 The PhAB non-word reading outcome showed g = 0.17 under intention to treat, rising to g = 0.24 in sensitivity analysis by actual treatment received, but neither reached statistical significance. → 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 · i1 · causal · r2

Sensitivity analysis of the individually randomised trial analysing participants by actual treatment received, necessitated by six swapped pupils. The printed effect size was g = 0.24; the intention-to-treat PhAB effect was g = 0.17 (-0.24, 0.58); raw-score analyses gave 0.27 and 0.37, all non-significant.

"There was a small effect size of 0.24 for the PhAB non-word reading scores after adjusting for the pre -test scores. This, however, failed to reach statistical significance as the lower confidence interval crossed zero"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Rapid Phonics delivered across the primary-secondary transition showed no significant effect on reading comprehension (primary outcome) — related
• Rapid Phonics showed no detectable effect on single word reading and no summer fall-back in word reading — related
• 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