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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-08 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Hecht & Close (2002) began with 140 full-day, at-risk Kindergarten students randomly selected from six schools; students from four intervention schools were matched to students in two comparison schools, and 64 students attrited, leaving a final analysis sample of 76. → 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

Study characteristics reported in WWC Appendix A1: a quasi-experimental design in six inner-city or rural Ohio public schools. Students were pretested in the fall and posttested in the spring; because of mobility and absences, 64 students attrited and the final analysis sample was 76 students (mean age five years seven months), mostly low-SES and African-American and eligible for free/reduced lunch. Baseline equivalence was demonstrated by the authors.

"The study began with 140 full-day, at-risk Kindergarten students who were randomly selected from six schools. Students from four schools who received the Waterford Early Reading Program™ were matched to students in two schools who did not receive the program."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Baseline equivalence was established only for low-achieving students, so analyses for other grades and subpopulations do not meet WWC evidence standards — 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
• 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
• 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 — related
• Across two quasi-experimental studies, Istation Reading shows a weighted mean effect size of +0.08, qualifying it for a Promising evidence rating — related
• Alphabetics improvement-index findings for Waterford Early Reading Program™ were inconsistent across outcomes, ranging from –26 to +37 percentile points — related
• Waterford Early Reading Program™ showed no discernible effects on comprehension, with a small non-significant effect size on vocabulary — related
• Attrition of 130 students (35%) between pretest and posttest was not systematically related to baseline characteristics — related