Research

Twenty-eight studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Earobics^®. Two studies (Cognitive Concepts, 2003, and Gale, 2006) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards. Two studies (Rehmann, 2005, and Valliath, 2002) are randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 24 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens.

Meets evidence standards

Cognitive Concepts (2003) conducted a randomized controlled trial of elementary school students in Los Angeles, California. Nineteen teachers identified students in kindergarten through third grade with reading difficulties. Students were pretested, matched, and then randomly divided into two groups. In all, 39 students used Earobics^® in addition to Open Court (their regular reading curriculum) during the study period that lasted from October to December, and 35 students in the comparison group used only Open Court.

Gale (2006) identified kindergarten and first-grade students whose fall Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) test scores indicated that they needed substantial intensive intervention. Among those students, 41 kindergarten students and 38 first-grade students eligible to participate in the study returned parental consent forms. These students were randomly assigned to one of three groups:
(1) Earobics^® Step 1, (2) Lexia Early Reading or (3) control. Students in groups 1 and 2 received the supplemental interventions during the five week study period in addition to their regular instruction, while the control group received no instruction beyond their regular language arts class time.

Meets evidence standards with reservations

Rehmann (2005) was a randomized controlled trial with severe differential attrition. At a Title I school with 140 kindergarten and first-grade students (70 at each grade level), the researcher blocked the students by gender and grade, randomly selected 20 students from each block to participate in the study, and then randomly assigned the 80 students from all four blocks to receive the 10-week intervention (40 students) or to a comparison group (40 students).⁶ Among this sample, 14 were discontinued during the study (10 in the intervention group and 4 in the comparison group), leaving a final analysis sample of 66 students.

Valliath (2002) conducted a quasi-experimental study of first-grade students from three elementary public schools in a high-achieving school district in Chicago, Illinois. Ten teachers identified three children with the lowest reading ability within their respective classrooms. Students were pretested, matched, and divided into two similar groups. In the analysis sample, 15 students used six exercises of the Earobics^® software for ten weeks, while 15 students in the comparison group used math software.

Extent of evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). 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.⁷

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Earobics^® to be small for alphabetics and reading fluency. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of Earobics^® in the comprehension or general reading achievement domains.