Claims

Neither NGRT secondary outcome (sentence completion or passage comprehension) showed a statistically significant effect of Rhythm for Reading

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? The sentence completion subscale effect size was -0.09 (95% CI -0.25 to 0.08, p=0.288) and the passage comprehension subscale effect size was 0.10 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.27, p=0.282); neither was 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 · r2

Secondary outcome analyses from the intention-to-treat regression models in the RCT, using raw scores in the relevant NGRT domains. Both subscale effect sizes had confidence intervals passing through zero and p-values above 0.28.

"Secondary Sentence completion score -0.09 -0.25 0.08 0.288 175 180 Secondary Passage comprehension score 0.10 -0.08 0.27 0.282 173 172"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.