No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The evidence base for SSL covers only the alphabetics domain, with two studies and 120 students, categorized as small extent of evidence. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Stepping Stones to Literacy. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.steppingstonestoliteracy.com

q2 · i? · review · r?

The report's extent-of-evidence table (Appendix A5) lists 2 studies, 17 schools, and 120 students for alphabetics and zero studies for the other three domains, stating a rating of "moderate to large" requires a total sample size of at least 350 students or 14 classrooms.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Stepping Stones to Literacy to be small for alphabetics. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement."

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 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
• 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 Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — 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 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 SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — 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 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