Effectiveness

Findings

The WWC review of beginning reading programs addresses student outcomes in four domains: alphabetics, fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement.⁶ Studies included in this report cover two domains: alphabetics and comprehension. Within alphabetics, three constructs were studied: phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and phonics. The findings below present the authors' estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and the statistical significance of the effects on students.⁷ The results are presented by domain for each of the Fast ForWord® studies that the WWC reviewed.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2005a) reported a statistically significant positive difference between the Fast ForWord® group and the comparison group using two measures of phonological awareness (Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) letter sounds and phonological awareness subtests). The authors subsequently confirmed in data provided directly to the WWC that the two subtests were also individually statistically significant.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2005b) reported statistically significant positive differences between the Fast ForWord® group and the comparison group using two phonics measures (Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) sight word efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency subtests). However, subsequent author calculations provided directly to the WWC showed that the individual subtests were not statistically significant.

Scientific Learning Corporation (2006) reported a statistically significant positive difference between the Fast ForWord® group and the comparison group on measures of phonological awareness and phonics including the Woodcock Johnson (WJ) letter word identification subtest and a negative difference using the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) initial sound fluency subtest (phonological awareness) and the letter naming fluency subtest (letter knowledge).⁸ According to WWC calculations, the positive effect on the WJ and the negative effect on the two DIBELS subtests were not statistically significant. The study authors provided the WWC with analysis of additional measures: the phonological awareness subtest of the TOPA and the initial sound discrimination, initial sound knowledge, and non-word recognition subtests of Reading Edge. The WWC found positive, but not statistically significant, effects on all these outcomes. The average effect size across all outcomes was not large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria.

Comprehension. Three studies examined the effects of Fast ForWord® on reading comprehension.

Borman & Benson (2006) reported no statistically significant difference in comprehension between the Fast ForWord® group and the comparison group using the total reading portion of the Terra Nova.

The Scientific Learning Corporation (2005c) reported a statistically significant positive difference between the intervention and comparison groups using the Degrees of Reading Power test.

Overbay & Baenen (2003) reported a negative, but not statistically significant, difference between the Fast ForWord® and comparison groups using the North Carolina End of Grade Test. Although it was not statistically significant, the negative effect size was large enough to be considered substantively important according to WWC criteria (that is, less than -0.25).

Rating of effectiveness

The WWC rates the effects of an intervention in a given outcome domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and the comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme).

Top