Remedial reading programs show effects around 0.49 for struggling readers and 0.54 for more severe difficulties¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Meta-analyses show remedial reading programs can be effective for struggling readers (effect size 0.49) and for children with more severe reading difficulties (effect size 0.54). → Verhoeven 2022

Evidence¶

Verhoeven 2022¶

Verhoeven, L.T.W.; Voeten, M.J.M.; Segers, P.C.J. (2022). Computer-assisted word reading intervention effects throughout the primary grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, article 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100486

q2 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?

The review reports, citing Scammacca et al. (2015) and Wanzek et al. (2016), that remedial programs "can be effectful for struggling readers (effect size 0.49)" and for more severe difficulties (0.54); the reviewed studies' designs are not described here.

"Meta-analyses have shown that these programs can be effectful for struggling readers (effect size 0.49) (Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing, 2015) and for children with more severe reading difficulties as well (effect size 0.54) (Wanzek et al., 2016)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Four remedial reading interventions combined improved phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension for third-grade struggling readers one year after the interventions ended, though not on all measures — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A 13-week multicomponent small-group reading intervention did not produce significantly better word reading, comprehension, or fluency outcomes than typical remedial instruction for middle school students with severe reading difficulties — reports the opposite
• Neither treatment nor typical-practice students with severe reading difficulties demonstrated significant standard-score growth over the 13-week study — reports the opposite
• Only one of 38 severely struggling middle school readers met a standard-score benchmark of 93 for adequate response to intervention after the study — reports the opposite
• Phonics instruction has a small but statistically confirmed effect for children with reading disabilities, while Orton-Gillingham structured-literacy programs show positive but non-significant effects — related
• Scaffolded Close Reading Improves Comprehension For Struggling Readers — related
• Systematic phonics outperforms unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on children's reading overall, but its advantage over whole-word teaching on novel words is untested in children and contested — related
• Phonics effects in the Galuschka et al. (2014) meta-analysis were similar in size to several alternative interventions, with no evidence phonics was more effective — related