Word attack gains from the Wilson Reading System were concentrated among students with high initial word attack or vocabulary scores and students not eligible for free/reduced lunch¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Subgroup analyses found statistically significant positive effects on WRMT-R word attack at posttest only for students with high initial word attack scores, students with high initial PPVT scores, and students not eligible for free/reduced lunch. → 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

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Subgroup analyses reported in the alphabetics appendix of the Torgesen et al. (2006) randomized controlled trial, by initial skill level (WRMT-R word attack and PPVT) and socio-economic status. No subgroup differences were found for fluency or comprehension outcomes.

"The study found statistically significant positive effects on WRMT–R word attack scores at posttest only for students with initial high word attack scores and students with initial high PPVT scores. Finally, the study found statistically significant positive effects on WRMT–R word attack and TOWRE-PDE posttest scores only for students who were not eligible for free/reduced lunch program, but not for those students who were eligible for free/reduced lunch."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• The Wilson Reading System shows potentially positive effects on alphabetics for beginning readers, based on a single randomized controlled trial — a broader claim this one bears on
• Effects of Corrective Reading varied by student subgroup: positive for students with high pretest vocabulary scores and for students not eligible for free/reduced lunch, but not for their counterparts — related
• The interventions did not consistently benefit any baseline subgroup more than another — reports the opposite
• The Power4Kids evaluation covered four widely used reading programs for elementary students with reading problems: Corrective Reading, Failure Free Reading, Spell Read P.A.T., and Wilson Reading — related
• The initiative was associated with an overall increase in promotions to the next grade, concentrated among special education students — related
• Subgroup analysis indicates notable growth for students from traditionally underserved groups, such as those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch — related