The FSM subgroup effect of Rhythm for Reading (effect size 0.11) was not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For FSM-eligible pupils the effect size was 0.11 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.37) and was not statistically significant. → Styles et al. 2014

Evidence¶

Styles et al. 2014¶

Dr Ben Styles, Rebecca Clarkson, Katherine Fowler. (2014). Rhythm for Reading: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN10404460/

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Pre-specified subgroup analysis on the primary outcome for the 66 intervention and 60 control pupils eligible for free school meals. The effect size of 0.11 had a confidence interval passing through zero; the report notes security was not provided for the sub-group analysis.

"Rhythm for Reading (FSM pupils) 66 0.11 (-0.16, 0.37) +2 No Security not provided for sub-group analysis"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• FSM-eligible pupils made around five additional months' progress under TDTS (effect size +0.38), though this finding has lower security — related
• The VEFP showed no statistically significant impact on reading for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• The Quest programme showed no statistically significant effect on Year 7 reading comprehension, with a small negative point estimate (Hedges g = -0.04) — related
• The trial found a statistically significant negative literacy impact for FSM-eligible pupils, treated with caution — related
• Subgroup analyses by gender, ethnicity, free school meal status and baseline ability all showed point estimates near zero with wide confidence intervals. — related
• For pupils entitled to free school meals, Butterfly Phonics showed no statistically significant effects on any outcome (NGRT g = 0.16, SWRT g = 0.42, PhAB g = 0.18) — related
• Neither intervention showed a statistically significant effect for free-school-meal pupils — related
• Passive dissemination showed no evidence of improving literacy attainment for the subgroup of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals — related
• Among FSM pupils, Rapid Phonics showed small non-significant effects on single word reading (0.2) and non-word reading (0.3) but not reading comprehension — related