Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse


Reading Plus®
Reading Plus®
September 2010

References

Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations

Reading Plus. (2008). Reading improvement report: Miami-Dade regions II and III. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc.

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

Allen, L. A. (2006). Metacognition and reading: Strategies for struggling readers (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University). Masters Abstracts International, 45(03), 57–1186. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Barnes, J. E. (2003). A pilot study regarding the effects of the Reading Plus program on reading levels. Unpublished master’s thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Marrs, H., & Patrick, C. (2002). A return to eye-movement training? An evaluation of the Reading Plus program. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 297. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Matthews, A. (2005). Effects of using Reading Plus 2000® on the reading rate of students with learning disabilities and visual efficiency problems. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2010). The value-added of a silent reading fluency instructional protocol and grade 4–10 students’ achievement in reading comprehension and general literacy. Unpublished manuscript. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2010). The value-added of a silent reading fluency instructional protocol and retained students’ achievement in reading comprehension and general literacy. Unpublished manuscript. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Phillips, S. (2006). Hi-tech goggles said to aid reading. Times Educational Supplement (4691), 20 The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (in press). The relationship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students’ reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Forthcoming in Reading Psychology. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Reading Plus. (2007). National research project: Nicoma Park Intermediate School overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Reading Plus. (2007). National research project: Prescott High School overview 2006–2007. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Belle Valley Elementary School overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Fourth grade study overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it uses a randomized controlled trial design that either did not generate groups using a random process or had nonrandom allocations after random assignment, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Galatas Elementary study summary 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Golden West High School overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Reading Plus. (2007). Reading Plus national research project: Second grade study overview 2005–2006. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Schlange, D., Patel, H., & Caden, B. (1999). Evaluation of the Reading Plus 2000 and visagraph system as a remedial program for academically “at risk” sixth and eighth grade students: A pilot study. Optometry and Vision Science, 76(poster 11). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group design or a single-case design.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.