References

 

Meets WWC evidence standards

Rouse, C. E., & Krueger, A. B. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 323–338.

Additional source:
Rouse, C. E., Krueger, A. B., & Markman, L. (2004). Putting computerized instruction to the test: A randomized evaluation of a “scientifically based” reading program. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007a). Students in Western Australia improve language and literacy skills: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author.

Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations

Beattie, K. K. (2000). The effects of intensive computer-based language intervention on language functioning and reading achievement in language-impaired adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08A), 194–3116.

Additional source:
Given, B. K., Wasserman, J. D., Chari, S. A., Beattie, K., & Eden, G. F. (2008). A randomized, controlled study of computer-based intervention in middle school struggling readers. Brain and Language, 106(2), 83–97.

Borman, G. D., & Benson, J. (2006). Can brain research and computers improve literacy? A randomized field trial of the Fast ForWord^® Language computer-based training program (WCER working paper no. 2006-5). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Overbay, A., & Baenen, N. (2002). Fast ForWord Evaluation, 2002–03 (Evaluation and Research Report no. 03.24). Raleigh, NC: Wake County Public School System.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004a). Improved Ohio Reading Proficiency Test scores by students in the Springfield City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(8), 1–6.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004b). Improved reading achievement by students in the school district of Philadelphia who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(21), 1–6.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007b). Improved reading skills by students in the South Madison Community School Corporation who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(34), 1–7.

Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Agnew, J. A., Dorn, C., & Eden, G. F. (2004). Effect of intensive training on auditory processing and reading skills. Brain and Language, 88(1), 21–25. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Agocs, M. M., Burns, M. S., Ley, L. E., Miller, S. L., & Calhoun, B. M. (2006). Fast ForWord Language. In R. J. McCauley & M. E. Fey (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 471–508). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Arendal, L., & Mann, V. (2000). Fast ForWord Reading: Why it works. Berkeley, CA: Scientific Learning Corporation. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Bailey, R. (2007). Study offers help for dyslexic children. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Office of Public Affairs. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Battin, R. R., Young, M., & Burns, M. (2000). Use of Fast ForWord in remediation of central auditory processing disorders. Audiology Today, 12(2), 13–15. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Bishop, D., Adams, C., Lehtonen, A., & Rosen, S. (2005). Effectiveness of computerized spelling training in children with language impairments: A comparison of modified and unmodified speech input. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 144–157. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bluth, T. L. (2002). Fast ForWord Language intervention: Does it really improve language and reading skills? Unpublished master’s thesis, St. Cloud State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Camarata, S. M. (2008). Fast ForWord^® does not significantly improve language skills in children with language disorders. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(2), 96–98. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Carpenter, Z. A. (2005). Effects of Fast ForWord on reading comprehension for elementary students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Children’s Hospital Boston. (2007). Sound training rewires dyslexic children’s brains for reading. Boston, MA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Ciacera, K. B. (2007). Will instruction using a computer-based cognitive skills development program, with audio and visual stimulation, increase the reading levels of male students in grades three through eight? Unpublished research paper, Salem State College, MA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Cohen, W., Hodson, A., O’Hare, A., Boyle, J., Durrani, T., McCartney, E., et al. (2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(3), 715. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.¹³

De Anda, I. (2000). Glasses for the ears: Technology provides a critical link to literacy. Multimedia Schools: A Practical Journal of Technology, Including Multimedia, CD-ROM, Online, Internet, & Hardware in K–12, 7(2). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

DeLarco, A., & Wagonblott, A. (2003). The effects of Fast ForWord intervention on the language performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, Buffalo State College, NY. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Divine, K. P., & Botkin, D. (2008). A study of the longitudinal effects of Fast ForWord on student performance in Duval County. Jacksonville, FL: Duval County Public Schools. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Eady, S. (2006). Effects of Fast ForWord on reading skills of students who speak Spanish and English. Unpublished master’s thesis, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). Fast ForWord^®. Denver, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Education Commission of the States. (2002). Fast ForWord^®. Denver, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Friel-Patti, S., DesBarres, K., & Thibodeau, L. (2001). Case studies of children using Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 203. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Friel-Patti, S., Frome Loeb, D., & Gillam, R. B. (2001). Looking ahead: An introduction to five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 195–202. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Gillam, R. B. (1999). Computer-assisted language intervention using Fast ForWord^®: Theoretical and empirical considerations for clinical decision-making. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30(4), 363–370. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Gillam, R. B., Crofford, J. A., Gale, M. A., & Hoffman, L. M. (2001). Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 231. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Gillam, R. B., Loeb, D. F., & Friel-Patti, S. (2001). Looking back: A summary of five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 269–273. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Gillam, R. B., Loeb, D. F., Hoffman, L. M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C. A., Thibodeau, L., et al. (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord Language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97–119. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Gillingham, G. G. (2001). Differential diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and central auditory processing disorders (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(04B), 97–2057. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Habib, M., Rey, V., Daffaure, V., Camps, R., Espesser, R., Joly-Pottuz, B., et al. (2002). Phonological training in children with dyslexia using temporally modified speech: A three-step pilot investigation. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 37(3), 289–308. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention conducted in English.

Hall, L. S. (2002). Final report of the 2001–2002 Scientific Learning/Fast ForWord program, REIS02-168-2. Dallas, TX: Dallas Independent School District, Division of Evaluation and Accountability. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Harrison, S., & Gimbel, J. F. (1998, March). A collaborative computerized language training project between Gonzaga University and St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education, Charleston, SC. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Ho, C. (2004). An examination of Fast ForWord Language intervention for children with poor reading abilities. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills and behavior in primary school students who used Fast ForWord^® Language at a Singapore public school. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(5), 1–6.

Holtby, L. M. (2002). Language and auditory processing abilities in a child with central auditory processing disorder following Fast ForWord Language intervention. Unpublished master’s thesis, Western Illinois University, Macomb. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Hook, P., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties—A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 73–96. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol— the sample was 100% special education students.

Hubing, R. L. (2000). Language and reading gains made by children who participate in Fast ForWord as compared to children who receive traditional intervention services. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% special education students.

Imaging, B. (2006). Cognitive neuroscience discoveries and educational practices: Seven areas of brain research that will shift the current behavioral orientation of teaching and learning. School Administrator, 63(11), 32. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Johnson, C. J. (2006). Getting started in evidence-based practice for childhood speech-language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology/American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 15(1), 20–35. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Johnson, K. K. (2003). The effect of Fast ForWord computer-based program on the reading skills of cognitively disabled students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kelly, D. A. (2005). Suggestions for parents, teachers, speech-language pathologists, and students: Enhancing functional outcomes in children with APD. In T. K. Parthasarathy (Ed.), An introduction to auditory processing disorders in children (pp. 229–245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Kidder, E. B. (2005). Can brain-based software help kids read better? Harvard Education Letter, 21(2), 8. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Kitzes, A. J. (2000). The effects of Fast ForWord on ADHD: The relationship between ADHD and language impairments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12-B), 6369. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Krumpe, J. A. (2006). Effects of a computer-assisted language intervention in a rural Nevada center (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(10A), 104–3712. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Krumpe, J. A., & Harlow, S. (2008). Effects of a computer-assisted language intervention in a rural Nevada center. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 106(3), 679–689. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lajiness-O’Neill, R., Akamine, Y., & Bowyer, S. M. (2008). Treatment effects of Fast ForWord^® demonstrated by magnetoencephalography (MEG) in a child with developmental dyslexia. Neurocase, 13(5-6), 390–401. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lavin, E. (2005). Using technology to develop phonemic awareness and auditory processing skills to enhance academic performance: A qualitative analysis of the Fast ForWord Language product. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bank Street College of Education, New York. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Loeb, D. F., Stoke, C., & Fey, M. E. (2001). Language changes associated with Fast ForWord Language: Evidence from case studies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 216–230. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Loliva, A. (2002). Following children’s progress through a well-known computerized training program, Fast ForWord. Unpublished master’s thesis, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Lyytinen, H., Guttorm, T. K., Huttunen, T., Hämäläinen, J., Leppänen, P. H. T., & Vesterinen, M. (2005). Psychophysiology of developmental dyslexia: A review of findings including studies of children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18(2), 167–195. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Marion, G. G. (2004). An examination of the relationship between students’ use of the Fast ForWord Reading program and their performance on standardized assessments in elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading achievement by students in the Grainger County School District who used the Fast ForWord Language product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(2), 1–4.

Marler, J. A., Champlin, C. A., & Gillam, R. B. (2001). Backward and simultaneous masking measured in children with language-learning impairments who received intervention with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning System software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 258–268. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Marshall, A. (2004). The everything parent’s guide to children with dyslexia: All you need to ensure your child’s success. Avon, MA: Adams Media. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Masters, M. G., Stecker, N. A., & Katz, J. (2000). Central auditory processing disorders: Mostly management. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McCauley, R. J., & Fey, M. E. (2006). Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

McFarland, D. J., & Cacace, A. T. (2005). Current controversies in CAPD: From Procrustes’ bed to Pandora’s box. In T. K. Parthasarathy (Ed.), An introduction to auditory processing disorders in children (pp. 247–263). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Merzenich, M. M., Jenkins, W. M., Johnston, P., Schreiner, C., Miller, S. L., & Tallal, P. (1996). Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science, 271(5245), 77. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Tallal, P., Miller, S. L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S. S., et al. (1996). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271(5245), 81–84.

Merzenich, M. M., Miller, S., Jenkins, W. M., Saunders, G., Protopapas, A., Peterson, B., et al. (1998). Amelioration of the acoustic and speech reception deficits underlying language-based learning impairments. In C. von Euler, I. Lundberg, & R. Llinas (Eds.), Basic sensory mechanisms in cognition and language: Wenner Gren international series, 70, 143–174. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Merzenich, M. M., Saunders, G., Jenkins, W. M., Miller, S., Peterson, B., & Tallal, P. (1999). Pervasive developmental disorders: Listening training and language abilities. In S. H. Broman & J. M. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (pp. 365–385). New York: Oxford University Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% special education students.

Merzenich, M. M., Tallal, P., Peterson, B. E., Miller, S. L., & Jenkins, W. M. (1999). Some neurological principles relevant to the origins of—and the cortical plasticity-based remediation of—developmental language impairments. In J. Grafman & Y. Christen (Eds.), Neuroplasticity: Building a bridge from the laboratory to the clinic (pp. 169–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Miller, S. L., Merzenich, M. M., Tallal, P., DeVivo, K., Linn, N., Pycha, A., et al. (1999). Fast ForWord training in children with low reading performance. Proceedings of the 1999 Dutch National Speech-Language Association Meeting, 1–18. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Additional source:
Scientific Learning Corporation. (1999). Improved language skills by children with low reading performance who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Product Report, 3(1), 1–13.

Miller, S., & Tallal, P. (2007). Addressing literacy through neuroscience. The School Administrator, 63(11), 19–23. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Mohler, R. I. (2005). The effect on literacy levels by the Fast ForWord program and its connection with students’ behavior and academic achievement (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, 2005). Masters Abstracts International, 44(03), 106–1123. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Moore, D. R. (2007). Auditory processing disorders: Acquisition and treatment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40(4), 295–304. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Mulivich, R. A., & Kramer, R. (2000). The success of the Fast ForWord program with emotionally disturbed adolescents: A retrospective study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Buffalo State College, NY. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Nagarajan, S. S., Wang, X., Merzenich, M. M., Schreiner, C. E., Johnston, P., Jenkins, W. M., et al. (1998). Speech modifications algorithms used for training language learning–impaired children. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 6(3), 257–268. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Noble, K. G., Tottenham, N., & Casey, B. (2005). Neuroscience perspectives on disparities in school readiness and cognitive achievement. The Future of Children, 15(1), 71–89. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Nulty, M. (1999). The impact of Fast ForWord on phonological awareness and literacy skills. Unpublished master’s thesis, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Olson, K. M. (2002). FFW Language to Reading effects on acquired dyslexia (Master’s thesis, MGH Institute of Health Professions, 2002). Masters Abstracts International, 40(03), 47–700. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Pearson, P. D., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, R. L., Jr., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Pokorni, J. L., Worthington, C. K., & Jamison, P. J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LIPS. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 147–158. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% special education students.

Robertson, N. B. (2001). A new approach to teaching the child with language impairments. Unpublished master’s project, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Roy, D. D. (2008). Assessing validity of web-based computer adaptive training modules. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 127–136. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Russo, C. (2000). A quasi-experimental study of the effects of Fast ForWord and Recipe for Reading on central auditory processing and phonological processing deficits among learning disabled and language-disabled reading students in grades one through six. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(01A), 212–97. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Schacter, J. (1999). Reading programs that work: A review of programs from pre-kindergarten to 4th grade. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Schacter, J. (2001). Reading programs that work: An evaluation of kindergarten-through-third-grade reading instructional programs. ERS Spectrum, 19(4), 12–25. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Schlaggar, B. L., & McCandliss, B. D. (2007). Development of neural systems for reading. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 475–503. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Schopmeyer, B., Mellon, N., Dobaj, H., Grant, G., & Niparko, J. K. (2000). Use of Fast ForWord to enhance language development in children with cochlear implants. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology: Supplement 185, 95–98. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(1), 3–20. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (1998). National field trial results. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2002). Scientifically based reading research and the Fast ForWord products: Research implications for effective language and reading intervention (Education Department report #127). Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved language and early reading skills of English-language learners in the Paradise Valley Unified School District who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(7), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved language skills by students in the Escambia County School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(8), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved listening comprehension for middle school students in the Waupun School District. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(2), 1–4. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved reading skills by high school students in Pocatello/Chubbuck School District #25 who used Fast ForWord^® Middle and High School. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(5), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved reading skills by students in the Exceptional Student Education Program in the Osceola County School District who used Fast ForWord^® Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(1), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2003). Improved reading vocabulary and comprehension skills by students in the school district of Philadelphia who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 7(6), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved academic achievement by students at Westwood Elementary School who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(7), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved academic achievement by students in the Manchester City School District, Tennessee, who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(7), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved academic skills of low-performing students in the Pacifica School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(1), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved cognitive and early reading by students in the Berlin School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(31), 1–5. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved cognitive and early reading skills by students in Stamford City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(30), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved cognitive and language skills by students in the Niagara Falls City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(35), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved early reading skills by students in the Marshall County School District who used Fast ForWord^® Basics. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(12), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students at Cherry Hill Public School District in New Jersey who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(4), 1–5. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students at School District 54 in Schaumburg who used Fast ForWord^® Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(6), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students at the Rockaway Township School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(15), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students in the Harrisburg School District who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(10), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students in the Puyallup School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(11), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord Language to Reading. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(1), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% special education students.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord Middle & High School. MAPS for Learning: Product Reports, 8(2), 1–4. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and early reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord to Reading 3. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(3), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading skills by students at Title I schools who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(16), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading skills by students in the Albuquerque School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(33), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading skills by students in the Boone County School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(17), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading skills by students in the Los Banos Unified School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(18), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language and reading skills by students in the school district of Philadelphia who were receiving services for special education and who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(20), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language skills by students at Mora School District who used Fast ForWord Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(19), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language skills by students in Brainerd School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(29), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language skills by students in Pottsville School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(24), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved language skills by students in Shelby County School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(26), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading achievement by middle school students at George Thomas Middle School who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(22), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading achievement by students in the Bay District schools in Florida who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(27), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading achievement by students in the Killeen Independent School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(23), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading achievement by students in the Pawhuska and Harlandale School Districts who used Fast ForWord to Reading 3. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(13), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading comprehension by students in the Trumbull Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(34), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading skills by students in Pocatello/Chubbuck School District 25 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(32), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading skills by students in the Cobb County School District in Georgia who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(5), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading skills by students in the Virginia Department of Correctional Education who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(28), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord to Reading 3. MAPS for Learning: Product Reports, 8(3), 1–3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Reading skills improved by students at Centerville Elementary School who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 3. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 8(2), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Seminole County students make excellent gains using new Fast ForWord to Reading software. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved academic achievement by students in the Christina School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(7), 1–10. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved academic achievement by students in the Joshua Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(19), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved academic achievement by students in the Petal School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(28), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved academic skills by students at Harlem School District 12 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(11), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved academic skills in the Harlem School District 12 by students with Native American ancestry who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(12), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved cognitive and language skills by students in the Niagara Falls City School District who used Fast ForWord products 2004–2005. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(33), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved early reading skills by students in Springfield City School District who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 1. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(25), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved early reading skills by students in three districts who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 1. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(1), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved oral language skills by students in Weymouth Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(8), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in Oregon City School district who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(20), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in Pocatello/Chubbuck School District 25 who used Fast ForWord products, longitudinal results. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(38), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the Burlington Area School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(12), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(10), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District 25 who used Fast ForWord^® products during 2004–2005. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(39), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the school district of Philadelphia who used Fast ForWord^® products during the 2004–2005 school year. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(30), 1–8. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the school district of Philadelphia who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(31), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the Washington Local School District who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(9), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading achievement by students in the Washington Local School District who used Fast ForWord^® products 2004–2005. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(37), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in a Texas school district who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(24), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in Seminole County School District who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 1 and 2. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(17), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Anne Arundel County Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(4), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Clover Park School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(6), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Columbia School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(36), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Dallas Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(34), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the El Campo Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(29), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the El Campo Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products with a 30-minute protocol. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(35), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Erlanger-Elsmere Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(22), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Hingham Public School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(26), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Juneau School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(10), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the La Joya Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(32), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Lancaster County School District who used Fast ForWord to Reading 2. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(8), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Milford City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(1), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Monessen City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(23), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Portsmouth School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(8), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Poteau School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(16), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the United Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(27), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in the Wichita Falls Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(13), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in Todd County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(14), 1–8. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in Weakley County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(21), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Improved reading skills by students in Williamsport Area School District who used Fast ForWord^® Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(15), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2005). Struggling readers in Dallas ISD gain 2.5 grade levels. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Early reading skills climb eleven percentage points in seven weeks. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Escambia County School District improves oral language skills by 2.5 years in two months. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved academic achievement by students in the Hamilton County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(1), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved academic achievement by students in the Redlands Unified School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(19), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Fast ForWord participants in Redlands USD outperform district peers: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved auditory processing by students in the United Kingdom who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(11), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved cognitive skills accelerate English language and reading development in bilingual English speaking students in India who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(17), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved early reading skills by students in Manchester City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(6), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved early reading skills by students in the Todd County School District who used Fast ForWord^® Language Basics. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(24), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved English language and perceptual skills by German secondary school students who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(4), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved language and reading achievement by students in the Lamar County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(6), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved language and reading skills by students in NSW Australia who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(3), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved language skills by adolescents with emotional or behavioral difficulties who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(20), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved language skills by students in School District 16 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(32), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved language skills by students in the Albany County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(22), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading achievement by students in the Eustace Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(30), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading achievement by students in the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District 25 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(33), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by high school students in the Amarillo Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(34), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in Boone County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(15), 1–7. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in Bridges Academy who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(14), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in Fulton County Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(18), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in Pocatello/Chubbuck School District #25 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(25), 1–5. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES who used Fast ForWord products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(26), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Dallas Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(2), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Franklin Regional School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(29), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Hicksville Exempted Village School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(23), 1–6. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Kentwood Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(27), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Lafayette Parish School System who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(35), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Oakland Unified School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(2), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Shelby County School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(16), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Union City Area School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(31), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Van Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(28), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in the Virginia Department of Correctional Education who used Fast ForWord^® products 2004–2005 report. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(13), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students in Washington Local Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(32), 1–6. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Improved reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading Prep. MAPS for Learning: Product Reports, 10(1), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Longitudinal research demonstrates that Fast ForWord^® products produce enduring neurological changes. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Low-performing students shift to higher percentiles in all academic areas. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). NSW, Australia: Reading skills jump from the 14th percentile to the 32nd: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Number of students in the average range increases by 38% in five weeks: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Rapid gain of 9 percentiles shows long-term benefits: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Second-graders gain 55 percentiles after 2.5 months: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Significant gains in reading for second language learners and special education students using Fast ForWord^® software: Dallas Independent School District. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 10(9), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Students at Hempfield School District gain one grade level in seven weeks: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Students gain 8.4 percentiles in early reading after 4.5 weeks: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Students gain 17 percentiles in early reading after 8 weeks: Educator’s briefing, June 2006. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Students in Mumbai, India, dramatically improve literacy skills with Fast ForWord^® products. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2006). Students make significant gains in early reading: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Australian students improved literacy skills using Fast ForWord, study finds. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Boone County School District makes gains in academic skills: Educator's briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Brain-imaging study shows that Fast ForWord educational software improves reading. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Greater reading improvements for students who complete more Fast ForWord content. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(35), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Idaho School District students reap significant results from Fast ForWord^® products. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved early reading skills by students in Lancaster County School District who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 1. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(5), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved language and early reading skills by students in the Houston County Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products 2006–2007. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(30), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved language and early reading skills by students in the William Penn School District who used Fast ForWord^® Language. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(13), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved language skills by students in the Albany County School District who used Fast ForWord products 2006–2007. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(5), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved language skills by students with developmental delays who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(12), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading achievement by students in the Lafourche Parish Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(23), 1–5. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading and language skills by students in the Liberty Public School District who used Fast ForWord^®. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(27), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading fluency skills by students who used the Fast ForWord^® Language to Reading product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(19), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills and academic achievement by gifted and talented students who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(11), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in Ireland who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(4), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Pawhuska School District who used Fast ForWord^® to Reading 2. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(20), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in Sampson County Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(3), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Boone County School District who used the Fast ForWord^® Language product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(18), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES who used Fast ForWord^® products 2006–2007. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(26), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Eldred Central School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(1), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Everett Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(33), 1–9. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Kentwood Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products 2006–2007. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(26), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Mexico Public Schools #59 who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(31), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Niagara Falls City School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(24), 1–10. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the PPEP TEC High School who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(16), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Smoky Hill Education Service center who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(10), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the South Euclid–Lyndhurst School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(28), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the St. Mary Parish Public School System who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(9), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Tumwater School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(22), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Vanguard School of Lake Wales who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(15), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Virginia Department of Correctional Education who used Fast ForWord^® products, 2005–2006 report. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(3), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Washington Local School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(8), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in the Worcester County Public School District who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(7), 1–8. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students in Warren County Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(29), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Improved reading skills by students who used Fast ForWord^® products in Highland View Elementary, Bristol, VA. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(14), 1–4. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Nearly one year of reading gain after nine weeks on Fast ForWord to Reading 3 for 30 minutes per day: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Oklahoma students demonstrate improved reading skills after using Fast ForWord to Reading 3. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Participants who complete more content make greater gains: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Students improve reading skills after using a 30-minute protocol: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Students in the Edgewood Independent School District show gains on the TPRI and Tejas LEE after using Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 11(17), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Students make significant reading gains after using Fast ForWord to Reading products: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Student reading comprehension reaches 83% correct after Fast ForWord participation: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2007). Texas students post excellent TAKS gains after using Fast ForWord^® products. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Children with language impairment make long-term gains in abilities after using Fast ForWord^® Language software. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Dallas ISD’s four-year longitudinal study shows students improve test scores after using Fast ForWord^® products. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Decreasing the achievement gap: Improved reading skills by struggling readers in the Dallas Independent School District who used Fast ForWord^® products: A four-year longitudinal study. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(1), 1–9. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved language skills by students in Bermuda who used Fast ForWord^® products through BerCon Ltd. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(6), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills by students at Lee Kornegay Junior High School who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(4), 1–5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills by students in Lawrence Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(11), 1–8. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills by students in the Perrysburg Exempted Village Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(2), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills by students in the Springfield Public Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(7), 1–6. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills by students who used the Fast ForWord^® Literacy and the Fast ForWord^® Literacy Advanced products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(8), 1–7. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Improved reading skills in students in the Fort Wayne Community Schools who used Fast ForWord^® products. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 12(10), 1–7. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). St. Mary Parish Public School System achieves significant test score gains after using Fast ForWord^® products. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (2008). Students in Perrysburg, Ohio, improve their reading fluency after using Fast ForWord products: Educator’s briefing. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Boone County, KY. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Cumberland County, NC. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Everett, MA. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Jackson County, MS. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Pocatello/Chubbuck, ID. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Seminole, TX. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Smoky Hill, KS. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Stamford, CT. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Case study: Toledo, OH. Oakland, CA: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Scientific Learning Corporation. (n.d.). Summary of data collected and analyzed by the Dallas Independent School District (Research and Outcomes Department report #129). Dallas, TX: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Sharp, M. V. T. (2007). An evaluation of the Fast ForWord program in the Christina School District (Delaware) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(08A), 105–3268. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Sheble, A. T. (2002). The efficacy of Fast ForWord Language training: Language and reading skills. Unpublished educational specialist thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Slattery, C. A. (2003). The impact of a computer-based training system on strengthening phonemic awareness and increasing reading ability level (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09A), 125–3234. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Scientific Learning Corporation. (2004). Improved reading abilities by students in the Bethlehem Area School District in Pennsylvania who used the Fast ForWord Language product. MAPS for Learning: Educator Reports, 9(3), 1–4.

Smith, J. K. (2007). Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of academic gains after the treatment of Fast ForWord^® of students with auditory processing deficits. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–San Marcos. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Stoke, C. R. (1998). Changes in language, reading, and academic abilities in children with language learning impairments following Fast ForWord intervention: Three case studies. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Strehlow, U., Haffner, J., Bischof, J., Gratzka, V., Parzer, P., & Resch, F. (2006). Does successful training of temporal processing of sound and phoneme stimuli improve reading and spelling? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 15(1), 19–29. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Tallal, P. (2006). Process faster, talk earlier, read better. In G. D. Rosen (Ed.), The dyslexic brain (pp. 49–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Tallal, P., & Gaab, N. (2006). Dynamic auditory processing, musical experience and language development. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(7), 382–390. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Tallal, P., & Merzenich, M. (1997). Fast ForWord training for children with language-learning problems: National field test results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Boston, MA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Tallal, P., & Rice, M. L. (1997). Evaluating new training programs for language impairment. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 39(3), 12. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Tallal, P., Saunders, G., Miller, S., Jenkins, W. M., Protopapas, A., & Merzenich, M. M. (1997). Rapid training-driven improvement in language ability in autistic and other PDD children. Society for Neuroscience–Abstracts, 23, 490. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% special education students.

Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., Merzenich, M. M., et al. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 100, 2860–2865. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Trei, L. (2003). Remediation training improves reading ability of dyslexic children. Stanford Report. Retrieved from http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february26/dyslexia-226.html

Temple, E., Poldrack, R. A., Protopapas, A., Nagarajan, S., Salz, T., Tallal, P., et al. (2000). Disruption of the neural response to rapid acoustic stimuli in dyslexia: Evidence from functional MRI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97, 13907–13912. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Thibodeau, L. M., Friel-Patti, S., & Britt, L. (2001). Psychoacoustic performance in children completing Fast ForWord^® training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 248. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Troia, G. (2004). Migrant students with limited English proficiency: Can Fast ForWord Language make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 353–366. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample was 100% limited English proficiency students.

Troia, G. A., & Whitney, S. D. (2003). A close look at the efficacy of Fast ForWord^® Language for children with academic weaknesses. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 465–494. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Tucker, P. (2007). The rise of brain-focused teaching. The Futurist, 41(3), 14. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Valentine, D., Hedrick, M. S., & Swanson, L. A. (2006). Effect of an auditory training program on reading, phoneme awareness, and language. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 103(1), 183–196. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Valentine, D. T. (2003). Changes in backward masking thresholds, reading, phoneme awareness, and language skills following an auditory training program (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09B), 215–4318. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Veale, T. K. (1999). Targeting temporal processing deficits through Fast ForWord^®: Language therapy with a new twist. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 30(4), 353–362. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Wahl, M., Robinson, C., & Torgesen, J. (2003). Fast ForWord Language. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Wankoff, L. S. (Ed.). (2005). Innovative methods in language intervention: Treatment, outcome, measures: Can the data support the claims? Austin, TX: PRO-ED. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Weisz, S. M. (2002). Evaluating the appropriateness of Fast ForWord training for hard of hearing children. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Werner, N. A. (2002). Comparison study of the reading achievement of students who have participated in the Fast ForWord program with students who have not participated in the program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Wilcox, C. C. (2007). Evaluating the effects of a reinforcement system for students participating in the Fast ForWord Language program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Williams, K. K. (2004). An evaluation of two computer-based training software programs designed to develop the language and listening skills of students (Masters thesis, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, 2004). Masters Abstracts International, 45(06), 50–2812. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Windsor, J. (2001). From the associate editor. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(3), 194. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Winters, J. L. (2000). Perceptions of middle school students concerning their language and reading abilities under different instructional interventions (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02A), 163–569. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.¹⁴

Studies with disposition pending

Barrett, M. L. (2002). The effect of computer-assisted instruction for students with central auditory processing disorder using the Fast ForWord^® program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is not included because it uses a design for which the WWC is currently developing standards.

Deppeler, J. M., Taranto, A. M., & Bench, J. (2004). Language and auditory processing changes following Fast ForWord. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 26(2), 94–109. The study is not included because it uses a design for which the WWC is currently developing standards.

Seats, T. C. (1998). Treatment efficacy of temporal exercises in the habilitation of central auditory processing disorder (Master’s thesis, Southern Connecticut State University, 1998). Masters Abstracts International, 37(02), 59–580. The study is not included because it uses a design for which the WWC is currently developing standards.