Phonemic awareness effects of Reading Recovery were positive and substantively important but not statistically significant in one trial¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Schwartz (2005) reported no statistically significant differences on phonemic awareness measures, though effects were positive and met the WWC substantively-important threshold of at least 0.25. → Reading Recovery® 2013

Evidence¶

Reading Recovery® 2013¶

Reading Recovery®. (2013). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, Beginning Reading. Updated July 2013. http://www.readingrecovery.org

q3 · i? · review · r3

In the 2005 RCT, the phonemic awareness measures (deletion task, Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation) showed "no statistically significant differences," yet effects were positive and met the WWC substantively-important criterion of at least 0.25. No test statistic is printed, so impact is null.

"Schwartz (2005) reported no statistically significant differences for the phonemic awareness measures—the deletion task and the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation—but the effects on both measures were positive and considered substantively important based on the WWC criteria (that is, at least 0.25)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Reading Recovery has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for beginning readers — related
• The effect on SAT math scores was positive but not statistically significant, though large enough to be substantively important (effect size at least 0.25) — related