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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 36 studies reviewed, only Hecht & Close (2002), a quasi-experimental design, met WWC evidence standards with reservations; the remaining 35 did not meet WWC evidence screens, and the extent of evidence was small for alphabetics and comprehension. → 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? · review · r3

WWC review of the program's research base. The single qualifying study included 42 intervention students in four schools and 34 comparison students in two schools; the final analysis sample was 76 students. Reasons studies failed screens included no comparison group, historical cohort comparisons, incomparable groups, confounding, and unreported complete data.

"Thirty-six studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Waterford Early Reading Program ™. One study (Hecht & Close, 2002) was a quasi-experimental design that met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 35 studies did not meet WWC evidence screens."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 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
• Baseline equivalence was established only for low-achieving students, so analyses for other grades and subpopulations do not meet WWC evidence standards — related
• The extent of evidence for Reading Plus® on adolescent learners is small, resting on a single study that met WWC standards with reservations — related
• 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 SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — 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 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Waterford Early Reading Program™ showed no discernible effects on comprehension, with a small non-significant effect size on vocabulary — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Alphabetics improvement-index findings for Waterford Early Reading Program™ were inconsistent across outcomes, ranging from –26 to +37 percentile points — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The WWC rated DreamBox Learning as having potentially positive effects on mathematics achievement with a small extent of evidence — related
• The evidence base on dual language programs is thin: only two of 122 identified studies met WWC standards — 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
• Evidence base for Waterford Early Reading Level One™ is small, with no standards-meeting studies in four of six outcome domains — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Waterford Upstart participation shows statistically significant positive effects on early literacy skills in matched quasi-experimental cohorts — related
• Thirteen of 14 reviewed studies of the program fail WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens, most for lacking comparison-group designs or non-equivalent quasi-experimental groups — related
• The evidence base for first year experience courses consists only of quasi-experimental studies meeting WWC group design standards with reservations — 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
• The evidence base for Core-Plus Mathematics is small: of 17 reviewed studies, only one met WWC standards (with reservations) and 16 did not meet standards or screens — related
• The effects of ITSS are not known for adolescent literacy outcomes other than comprehension — related
• The evidence base for Building Blocks for Math is small and limited to the math domain — related