|
|
Research
One study reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Read, Write & Type!™. The study (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, & Herron 2003) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards.
Met evidence standards
Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, & Herron (2003) included 150 low-achieving first grade students in five elementary schools. At two of the schools, students were randomly assigned either to the Read, Write & Type!™ condition or to the Auditory Discrimination in Depth® condition. At three schools, students were randomly assigned to Read, Write and Type (RWT), Auditory Discrimination in Depth® (ADD), or a regular instruction comparison group. The beginning reading review presents data relevant to comparisons of RWT with ADD and of RWT with regular instruction. 3 The beginning reading review presents findings from all comparisons. 4
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 met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations. 5
The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Read, Write & Type!™ to be small for alphabetics and comprehension. No studies that met WWC standards with or without reservations addressed fluency or general reading achievement.
4 The WWC review of beginning reading includes all comparisons that meet evidence standards because all schools provide some type of reading instruction and there is no typical comparison condition.
5 The Extent of Evidence categorization was developed to tell readers how much evidence was used to determine the intervention rating, focusing on the number and size of studies. Additional factors associated with a related concept, external validity, such as students' demographics and the types of settings in which studies took place, are not taken into account for the categorization.
