Research

A total of 305 studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Fast ForWord^® on adolescent learners. Two studies (Rouse & Krueger, 2004; Scientific Learning Corporation, 2007a) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards. Six studies (Beattie, 2000; Borman & Benson, 2006; Overbay & Baenen, 2002; Scientific Learning Corporation 2004a, 2004b, 2007b) are randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 297 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens.

Meets evidence standards

Rouse and Krueger (2004) conducted a randomized controlled trial of students in grades 3–6 in an urban district in the northeastern United States. Students scoring in the bottom 20% on the state’s standardized reading test were randomly assigned within each grade and school to either the treatment group or the control group. The WWC based its effectiveness ratings on findings from comparisons of 237 students who received Fast ForWord^® as a supplemental targeted pullout program during the regular school day and 217 control students who received regular reading instruction. The study reported students’ outcomes after six to eight weeks of program implementation.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2007a) conducted a randomized controlled trial of 5- to 14-year-old students from four primary schools in the Perth metropolitan area in Western Australia. Students who had difficulties with language, literacy, auditory processing, attention, and/or behaviors were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 68 students who received Fast ForWord^® and 69 control group students who received regular classroom instruction. The study reported students’ outcomes after three months of program implementation.

Meets evidence standards with reservations

Beattie (2000) conducted a randomized controlled trial of middle and high school students in suburban northern Virginia. Students with language deficits who ranged in age from 11 to 16 were randomly assigned by computer-generated procedures to one of five groups (Appendix 1.1 provides more details about these groups). The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 12 students who received Fast ForWord^® and 12 control group students who received regular reading instruction. Although these analytic samples were shown to be equivalent at baseline, overall attrition of the study sample led to the study’s rating of meets standards with reservations. The study reported students’ outcomes after two months of program implementation.

Borman and Benson (2006) conducted a randomized controlled trial of 7th-grade students attending seven middle schools in Baltimore, Maryland. Students scoring below the 50th percentile on a district-administered reading test were randomly assigned within schools to either the treatment or the control group. Ninety students received the Fast ForWord^® program as a supplemental targeted pullout program during the regular school day. Although post-attrition analytic samples were shown to be equivalent at baseline, overall and differential attrition of the study sample led to the study’s rating of meets standards with reservations. The 98 students in the control group received nonliteracy instruction or participated in special activities and classes, such as art and gym, for their supplemental instruction. The study reported students’ outcomes after two months of program implementation.

Overbay and Baenen (2002) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effect of Fast ForWord^® on students from the Wake County Public School System in Raleigh, North Carolina. The students participating in Fast ForWord^® were matched to students from schools that were not using Fast ForWord^® based on demographic factors and reading pretest scores. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 355 students from grades 4–8 who used Fast ForWord^® and 355 comparison group students who did not. The study reported students’ outcomes after one academic year of program implementation.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2004a) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effect of Fast ForWord^® on 4th-grade students in four schools in Springfield, Ohio. Students who did not pass the Ohio Proficiency Test in 2002 constituted the study sample. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 41 students who received Fast ForWord^® and 50 comparison group students who attended schools that were not using Fast ForWord^® and, like treatment group students, did not pass the Ohio Proficiency Test. The study reported students’ outcomes after one semester of program implementation.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2004b) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effect of Fast ForWord^® on students from 16 public schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Students (primarily from 4th and 5th grades) were assigned to one of the three study groups. Group 1 received the Fast ForWord^® intervention from September to November, group 2 received the Fast ForWord^® intervention from December to February, and group 3 served as the control. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 125 students in group 1 and 37 control group students, as well as comparisons of 131 students in group 2 and 37 control group students. The study reported students’ outcomes after three months of program implementation.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2007b) conducted a quasi-experimental study that examined the effect of Fast ForWord^® on students in grades 2–5 in Pendleton, Indiana. Students selected to receive the Fast ForWord^® intervention were individually matched by school personnel, using grade-level and reading test scores, to students not using Fast ForWord^®. The WWC based its effectiveness rating on findings from comparisons of 35 students in grades 4 and 5 who received Fast ForWord^® and 35 comparison students who received the regular school curriculum. The study reported students’ outcomes after four months of program implementation.

Extent of evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Appendix G). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations.¹⁰

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Fast ForWord^® to be small for the alphabetics and reading fluency domains, and medium to large for the comprehension and general literacy achievement domains for adolescent learners.