The evidence base for the Wilson Reading System in beginning reading is small, with no studies addressing general reading achievement¶

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 nine reviewed studies, only one met WWC evidence standards, and the extent of evidence is small for alphabetics, fluency, and comprehension, with no studies addressing general reading achievement. → What Works Clearinghouse 2007

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2007¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2007). WWC Intervention Report: Wilson Reading System®. What Works Clearinghouse, Beginning Reading. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/546

q2 · i? · review · r3

The WWC's extent-of-evidence categorization across the three outcome domains, each based on the single Torgesen et al. (2006) randomized controlled trial covering 8 school units and 71 students; a moderate-to-large rating would require at least 350 students or 14 classrooms.

"The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Wilson Read- ing System® to be small for alphabetics, fluency, and compre- hension. No studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations addressed general reading achievement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 CWPT in beginning reading is small, with no standards-meeting studies of alphabetics, fluency, or comprehension — 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