Reading Recovery has positive effects on general reading achievement for beginning readers, based on three randomized controlled trials¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Three RCTs meeting WWC standards without reservations reported statistically significant positive effects of Reading Recovery on general reading achievement, with an average improvement index of +27 percentile points. → 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? · quant-synthesis · r2

WWC synthesis of three randomized controlled trials (Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons 1988; Pinnell et al. 1994; Schwartz 2005) including 227 first-grade students. Table 1 reports a "Positive effects" rating with improvement index "+27" (range +19 to +38) and a small extent of evidence; no standardized effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"General reading achievement Positive effects +27 +19 to +38 3 227 Small"

Reading Recovery® 2013 (2)¶

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

q3 · i? · review · r3

The effectiveness summary states that "three studies with strong designs reported statistically significant positive effects" in the general reading achievement domain, on measures including the Observation Survey subtests, Gates-MacGinitie, and Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised. No effect size is printed for this domain-level finding.

"Thus, for the general reading achievement domain, three studies with strong designs reported statistically significant positive effects. This results in a rating of positive effects, with a small extent of evidence."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading Recovery positively impacts grade 1 literacy achievement immediately after the intervention, with moderate evidence from one randomized controlled trial — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Reading Recovery has potentially positive effects on reading fluency, from a single randomized trial — related
• Reading Recovery has potentially positive effects on comprehension, with mixed findings across two trials — related
• Reading Recovery shows uncertain effects on general academic achievement ten years after the intervention — related
• Reading Recovery shows uncertain effects on mathematics achievement three years after the intervention — related
• Reading Go! showed positive but not statistically significant effects on reading comprehension — related
• Reading Recovery shows strong ESSA evidence of positive effects on general literacy achievement and moderate evidence on academic dispositions for grade 1 students — related
• In a student-randomized trial, struggling readers in grades 1–4 who used Amira scored significantly higher on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Total Reading Composite (effect size = +0.64) than Sustained Silent Reading controls — related
• Reading Recovery shows an average effect size of +0.43 across four qualifying studies, earning a Strong evidence rating — related
• Across two randomized studies, Air Reading shows a weighted average effect size of +0.20 on reading achievement, meeting the Strong standard — related
• Literacy First shows strong ESSA evidence of positive effects in phonics and related alphabetics, reading fluency, and reading comprehension for grades K–2 — related
• Reading Recovery improves writing conventions three years after the intervention, but the effect is significant only against one of the two comparison groups — related
• Reading Partners tutoring significantly improves reading comprehension for grade 2-4 struggling readers, with a total effect size of +0.10 — related