RTI showed a small positive headline effect of +0.19 on the New Group Reading Test, but the spoilt trial means it should not be taken as indicative of impact¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The RTI trial produced an estimated effect size of +0.19 on the NGRT post-test (about 3 months of additional progress), but the evaluators judged the result too insecure to treat as evidence of impact. → Gorard et al. 2014

Evidence¶

Gorard et al. 2014¶

Stephen Gorard, Nadia Siddiqui, Beng Huat See. (2014). Response to Intervention: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581264

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Waiting-list RCT in 61 English primary schools (30 treatment, 31 control) evaluating RTI for Year 6 pupils at risk of not reaching Level 4 English; NGRT post-test comparison of RTI-supported pupils with similar non-supported pupils. The report prints "an estimated effect size of +0. 19" but deems the trial spoilt.

"The first had an estimated effect size of +0. 19 . This headline result suggest s that this could programme have an impact equivalent to 3 months of additional progress in one year."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Prior US studies cited in the report suggest RTI has modest positive effects on literacy for transition-age pupils, but the evidence base is mixed and small-scale — related
• Gain-score analysis from NGRTA pre-test to NGRTB post-test gave a similar small positive effect (+0.15) for RTI — related
• A second outcome measure, the Progress in English test, suggested RTI may have a negative impact (effect size -0.09), making results mixed and sensitive to what is tested — related
• Sub-group effect sizes for FSM-eligible pupils (+0.48) and boys only (+0.26) were larger but based on very small numbers and deemed not secure — related