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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2010 · 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? Of 43 studies reviewed for students with learning disabilities, only one randomized controlled trial (Chenault et al., 2006; 20 students in grades 4–6 at one parochial school) met WWC evidence standards; the remaining 42 did not meet standards or eligibility screens, so the extent of evidence is small for reading fluency and writing and no studies cover seven other domains. → 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 · i? · review · r2
WWC synthesis of the literature search (documents publicly available by December 2009): 43 studies reviewed, one RCT met standards, 42 excluded for reasons such as no comparison group or samples with less than 50% students with learning disabilities. Appendix A5 lists one study, one school, and 20 students for each covered domain.
"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read Naturally ® to be small for students with learning disabilities in the reading fluency and writing domains. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of Read Naturally ® on students with learning disabilities in the alphabetics, reading comprehension, general reading achievement, math, science, social studies, or progressing in school domains."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — related
- Read Naturally® shows potentially positive effects on writing for students with learning disabilities, with a substantively important but non-significant effect size on the WIAT Written Expression subtest — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
read-naturally-small-evidence-base-learning-disabilities |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2010 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — read-naturally-2010 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.