Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? In the one study reporting alphabetics outcomes, the estimated impact was neither statistically significant nor large enough to be substantively important (improvement index +4). → What Works Clearinghouse 2014
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2014¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Repeated Reading: WWC Intervention Report, Students with Learning Disabilities. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/576
q3 · i? · review · r3
WWC review of the Wexler et al. (2010) randomized controlled trial, the only study reporting alphabetics outcomes, using the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the WJ III Tests of Achievement with 62 students in 11 classrooms. The WWC-calculated effect size was "not large enough to be considered substantively important," yielding a rating of no discernible effects.
"Wexler et al. (2010) found no statistically significant effects of repeated reading on one measure of alphabetics: the Letter-Word Identification subtest of the WJ III Tests of Achievement."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on general reading achievement for students with learning disabilities — related
- Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities — related
- One qualifying study found a substantively important but statistically non-significant positive effect of repeated reading on comprehension (effect size 0.28) — related
- Fast Track produced a positive, statistically significant effect on reading achievement/literacy after one year, significant on the Spache DRS but not on the Woodcock-Johnson Letter-Word Identification subtest — related
- Two years of multicomponent fluency intervention produced greater word-reading and fluency growth than one year or control, with no comprehension differences — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
repeated-reading-no-discernible-alphabetics-effects |
title |
Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities |
description |
Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.