The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 18 studies reviewed, only one met WWC evidence standards (with reservations), so the extent of evidence for the comprehension domain is small and other domains were not examined. → What Works Clearinghouse 2010

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2010¶

What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: Reading Plus®. U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/419

q2 · i? · review · r3

The report's review of 18 studies found that one quasi-experimental study met standards with reservations while the remaining 17 did not meet standards or eligibility screens. The report states "the extent of evi- dence for Reading Plus ® on adolescent learners to be small for the comprehension domain."

"Based on one stu dy, the WWC considers the extent of evi- dence for Reading Plus ® on adolescent learners to be small for the comprehension domain."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
• Reading Plus® produced a statistically significant positive effect on FCAT reading comprehension for low-achieving adolescent learners, with a small WWC-calculated effect of 0.06 — related
• The evidence base for Accelerated Reader with adolescent learners is thin: only 2 of 318 reviewed studies met WWC standards — related
• The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — related
• Only three of twelve identified OLI studies met WWC group design standards — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• Of 130 studies of school-based OST programs reviewed, 22 studies of 18 different programs met WWC standards or met them with reservations — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension — related
• The evidence base for first year experience courses consists only of quasi-experimental studies meeting WWC group design standards with reservations — related
• The evidence base for Core-Plus Mathematics is small: of 17 reviewed studies, only one met WWC standards (with reservations) and 16 did not meet standards or screens — related
• The evidence base for Reading Mastery with adolescent learners is small: only 2 of 175 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — a narrower finding that bears on this claim