Alphabetics improvement-index findings for Waterford Early Reading Program™ were inconsistent across outcomes, ranging from –26 to +37 percentile points¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-17 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Individual alphabetics improvement-index findings ranged from –26 to +37 percentile points around a domain average of +19, with some outcomes favoring the intervention and others favoring the comparison group, all non-significant. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Waterford Early Reading Program™. July 16, 2007. http://www.pearsondigital.com/pdfs/werp/researchsummary-werp.pdf

q2 · i? · causal · r2

WWC improvement-index computation across the nine alphabetics findings in Hecht & Close (2002), reported in Appendix A3.1. The domain average improvement index was "+19 percentile points", with individual findings ranging from –26 to +37 percentile points; all were statistically non-significant.

"The average improvement index for alphabetics is +19 percentile points for the single study, with a range of –26 to +37 percentile points across findings."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Alphabet Knowledge and Print Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• The WWC rated Waterford Early Reading Program™ as having potentially positive effects on alphabetics, based on a substantively important average effect size with no statistically significant individual outcomes — related
• Phonemic segmentation training favored over rhyme/alliteration training on print knowledge, phonological processing, and early reading/writing (Yeh 2003), with substantively important but non-significant differences — related
• Sound box training favored over sound sort training on phonological processing (Maslanka & Joseph 2002), with substantively important but non-significant differences averaging +11 percentile points — 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 — a broader claim this one bears on
• Waterford Early Reading Program™ showed no discernible effects on comprehension, with a small non-significant effect size on vocabulary — related
• Evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Level One™ is small, with no standards-meeting studies in four of six outcome domains — related
• Waterford Upstart participation shows statistically significant positive effects on early literacy skills in matched quasi-experimental cohorts — reports the opposite
• Some blended learning interventions improve student outcomes, but whether a positive effect exists varies across interventions and domains of achievement — related
• Waterford Early Reading Level One™ shows no discernible effects on preschool children's print knowledge — related
• In the qualifying quasi-experimental study, at-risk Kindergarten students using Waterford Level One for 15-minute daily sessions were matched to comparison students and pretested in fall and posttested in spring — related