Claims

The intervention had no statistically significant effect on reading scores

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
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 i0 A secondary analysis of 196 pupils found a non-significant decrease of 0.31 marks in reading score, an effect size of -0.09 (95% CI -0.59 to 0.41). → Torgerson 2014

Evidence

Torgerson 2014

Torgerson, D., Torgerson, C., Ainsworth, H., Buckley, H., Heaps, C., Hewitt, C., & Mitchell, N. (2014). Improving Writing Quality: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581140

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Secondary analysis repeating the primary multilevel model with reading score as the response, on 108 intervention and 88 control pupils. The report found "no evidence of a difference in reading scores" with an effect size of -0.09; equivalence was not tested.

"There was no evidence of a difference in reading scores between the allocated groups, with a non -significant decrease of 0. 31 marks for those in the intervention group when compared with those in the control group (p=0. 72, 95% CI: -2.02 to 1.41). This relates to an effect size of -0.09 (95% CI: -0.59 to 0.41)."

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.