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

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the one study reporting general reading achievement, the effect on the TOSRE was neither statistically significant nor substantively important (improvement index –7). → 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? · quant-synthesis · r2

WWC review of the Wexler et al. (2010) trial using the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency with 62 students in 11 classrooms. The WWC-calculated effect size was not large enough to be substantively important; the report rates the domain no discernible effects with a small extent of evidence.

"Wexler et al. (2010) found no statistically significant effect of repeated reading on one measure of general reading achievement: the Test of Silent Reading Efficiency (TOSRE)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 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