Claims

READ 180 shows a modest average effect size of +0.08 across five studies, qualifying it for a Strong evidence rating

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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? Across five studies of READ 180 covering 3,992 students, the average effect size was a modest +0.08, and the program qualified for the Strong category. → READ 180 evidence summary 2012

Evidence

READ 180 evidence summary 2012

READ 180 evidence summary. (2012). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Synthesis of five studies meeting inclusion standards (3,992 students). The summary reports "The average effect size across all studies was a modest +0.08" and that two studies with significant positive effects qualified the program for the Strong category.

"Five studies of READ 180 met inclusion standards. Two of these had statistically significant positive effects in comparison to control groups, qualifying READ 180 for the “Strong” category."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id read-180-average-effect-size-008
title READ 180 shows a modest average effect size of +0.08 across five studies, qualifying it for a Strong evidence rating
description READ 180 shows a modest average effect size of +0.08 across five studies, qualifying it for a Strong evidence rating
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2012
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — read-180-evidence-summary-2012

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.