The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Only one study of SMART® met WWC evidence standards, with 84 analyzed students across six schools, so the WWC rated the intervention as having potentially positive effects rather than positive effects in all three domains. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Start Making a Reader Today® (SMART®). https://www.getsmartoregon.org

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The WWC's rating rationale (Appendices A5.1–A5.3) states the positive-effects criterion requires two or more studies; with only one RCT and extent of evidence rated small for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension, the highest applicable rating was potentially positive effects.

"It did not meet the criteria for positive effects because only one study met WWC evidence standards."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — 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
• 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 EIR® is small: only one of seven reviewed studies met WWC evidence standards — 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 on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — 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 WWC rated JOBSTART as having potentially positive effects on completing school, based on a small extent of evidence from a single study — related