The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only one study met WWC evidence standards; the extent of evidence is small for alphabetics and comprehension, and no studies addressed fluency or general reading achievement. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Read, Write & Type!™. http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/RWTfullrept.pdf

q2 · i? · causal · r2

The WWC's extent-of-evidence categorization (Appendix A5) records one study, five schools, and 146 students for alphabetics and comprehension, and zero studies for fluency and general reading achievement; a moderate-to-large rating would require at least two studies and a total sample of at least 350 students.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read, Write & Type!™ to be small for alphabetics and comprehension. No studies that met WWC standards with or without reservations addressed fluency or general reading achievement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Little Books is small: only one study met WWC standards, addressing only general reading achievement, with no studies meeting standards for alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — related
• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — related
• The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Program™ is thin: only one of 36 reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards, and extent of evidence was rated small for both domains — related
• No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small — related
• The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — related
• Evidence extent for Voyager is moderate to large for alphabetics and small for comprehension, with no qualifying studies of fluency or general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for Read Well® with English language learners is small, resting on one randomized controlled trial of 34 students in one school — related
• The evidence base for Headsprout Early Reading is limited to one small RCT, supporting only a potentially positive rating — related
• The evidence base for the program is a single RCT of 3,074 randomly assigned youth, with 1,196 in the follow-up analysis sample, and the WWC rates the extent of evidence as small — related
• The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain — related