Comprehension effects of SpellRead™ differed between the two studies: Torgesen et al. found no significant effects while Rashotte et al. found significant effects on both outcomes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · 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.
q2 i? In the Torgesen et al. (2006) trial, neither comprehension outcome was statistically significant nor substantively important. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007
q3 i? In the Rashotte et al. (2001) trial, both comprehension outcomes showed statistically significant effects confirmed by WWC analysis. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007 (2)
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: SpellRead™. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
q3 · i? · review · r2
In the Torgesen et al. (2006) randomized trial of 203 third-grade students in Pennsylvania, the review reports no significant effects on two comprehension measures; the average effect size was neither statistically significant nor substantively important.
"the WRMT–R passage comprehension subtest and the GRADE passage comprehension subtest—and reported no statistically significant effects."
What Works Clearinghouse 2007 (2)¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: SpellRead™. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1
In the Rashotte et al. (2001) randomized trial, the review reports significant effects on the WDRB passage comprehension and GORT-3 comprehension subtests, with significance "consistent with the WWC calculation". This inconsistency across studies makes the domain-level evidence mixed.
"the GORT-3 comprehension subtest—and reported statistically significant effects for both outcomes. The statistical significance of these findings was consistent with the WWC calculation."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In the Torgesen et al. (2006) RCT, SpellRead™ showed indeterminate effects for fifth graders, with no statistically significant or substantively important effects in any domain after six months — related
- In the Rashotte, MacPhee, and Torgesen (2001) RCT, SpellRead™ produced statistically significant positive effects on alphabetics and reading fluency for fifth- and sixth-grade struggling readers after eight weeks — related
- SpellRead™ shows potentially positive effects on comprehension for adolescent readers, with an average improvement index of +11 — related
- One year after the intervention ended, SpellRead™ effects were not statistically significant on the supplemental Torgesen et al. (2007) outcomes — related
- Corrective Reading showed no statistically significant effects on reading comprehension outcomes — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
spellread-comprehension-inconsistent-across-studies |
title |
Comprehension effects of SpellRead™ differed between the two studies: Torgesen et al. found no significant effects while Rashotte et al. found significant effects on both outcomes |
description |
Comprehension effects of SpellRead™ differed between the two studies: Torgesen et al. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2007 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — what-works-clearinghouse-2007, what-works-clearinghouse-2007-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.