Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-10 (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 fluency outcomes, effects on four fluency measures were neither statistically significant nor substantively important (average improvement index –1, range –4 to +5). → 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? · causal · r3

WWC review of the Wexler et al. (2010) trial assessing four fluency measures — the TOSCRF and three AIMSweb oral reading fluency assessments of words read correctly per minute — with 62 students in 11 classrooms. The WWC-calculated average effect size across the four outcomes was not substantively important; the rating is no discernible effects with a small extent of evidence.

"Wexler et al. (2010) found no statistically significant effect of repeated reading on four measures of reading fluency: the Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF) and three assessments of oral reading fluency (number of words read correctly per minute) using the AIMSweb reading system."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it

Fluency-building activities for struggling readers in grades 4–9 have strong evidence, based on 33 studies — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities — related
Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on general reading achievement 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
LiPS has no discernible effects on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`repeated-reading-no-discernible-fluency-effects`
`title`	`Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities`
`description`	`Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`weak`
`newest_evidence`	`2014`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-10`
`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.