Read Naturally® shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities, with small negative effect sizes on GORT-III accuracy and rate¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In a randomized controlled trial with 20 dyslexic students in grades 4–6, Read Naturally® produced no statistically significant effects on either GORT-III Reading Accuracy or Reading Rate, and the WWC-calculated average effect size (domain average –0.16) was not substantively important. → Read Naturally® 2010

Evidence¶

Read Naturally® 2010¶

Read Naturally®. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: Read Naturally®. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.readnaturally.com

q3 · i1 · causal · r?

Randomized controlled trial (Chenault et al., 2006) reviewed under WWC standards: 20 dyslexic students in grades 4–6 randomly assigned to Read Naturally® or Pay Attention! in ten 25-minute sessions. The WWC confirmed "no statistically significant effects" on both GORT-III subtests; tabled effect sizes were –0.22 (Accuracy) and –0.11 (Rate), both ns, domain average –0.16, improvement index –6 percentile points.

"Chenault et al. (2006) found no statistically significant effects of Read Naturally ® on either of two measures of reading fluency: the Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate subtests from the Gray Oral Reading Test–III. The WWC confirmed these findings. Furthermore, the WWC-calculated average effect size across the two outcomes was not large enough to be considered substantively important."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• LiPS shows potentially positive effects on reading fluency: authors found significant effects on GORT–III Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate, but WWC analyses did not confirm significance — related
• Christ and Davie (2009) found positive, statistically significant effects of Read Naturally® Software Edition on three reading fluency measures — reports the opposite
• The evidence base for Read Naturally® with students with learning disabilities is small: one qualifying RCT of 20 students, with 42 of 43 reviewed studies excluded — related
• CSR shows small positive effects on GMRT and TOSREC with an average effect size of +0.04 across three evaluations — related
• Failure Free Reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency — related