One qualifying study found a substantively important but statistically non-significant positive effect of repeated reading on comprehension (effect size 0.28)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2014 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i1 Wexler et al. (2010) found no statistically significant effect of repeated reading on the WJ III Passage Comprehension subtest, but the WWC-calculated effect size of 0.28 met the WWC threshold of at least 0.25 for substantive importance. → What Works Clearinghouse 2014
Evidence¶
What Works Clearinghouse 2014¶
What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Repeated Reading: WWC Intervention Report, Students with Learning Disabilities. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/576
q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r2
WWC recalculation of the Wexler et al. (2010) randomized controlled trial, which paired students by median pretest oral reading fluency and randomly assigned pairs to repeated reading (33 students) or comparison (29 students) conditions. The Passage Comprehension subtest of the WJ III showed no statistically significant effect, but the effect size of 0.28 exceeded the WWC substantive-importance threshold of 0.25.
"However, the WWC-calculated effect size (0.28) was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria (i.e., an effect of at least 0.25). The WWC characterizes these study findings as a substantively important positive effect."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities — related
- Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on general reading achievement for students with learning disabilities — related
- Repeated reading shows no discernible effects on reading fluency for students with learning disabilities — related
- The effect on SAT math scores was positive but not statistically significant, though large enough to be substantively important (effect size at least 0.25) — related
- The guide treats an effect size of +0.25 or higher as substantively important, equivalent to raising performance at least 10 percentile points — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
wexler-2010-comprehension-effect-size-028-substantively-important |
title |
One qualifying study found a substantively important but statistically non-significant positive effect of repeated reading on comprehension (effect size 0.28) |
description |
One qualifying study found a substantively important but statistically non-significant positive effect of repeated reading on comprehension (effect size 0.28) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2014 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — what-works-clearinghouse-2014 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.