Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions for Students in the Primary Grades

Abstract

This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the most up-to-date literature to determine the effectiveness of reading interventions on measures of word and pseudoword reading, reading comprehension, and passage fluency, and to determine the role intervention and study variables play in moderating the impacts for students at risk for reading difficulties in Grades 1–3. We used random-effects meta-regression models with robust variance estimates to summarize overall effects and to explore potential moderator effects. Results from a total of 33 rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted between 2002 and 2017 that met WWC evidence standards revealed a significant positive effect for reading interventions on reading outcomes, with a mean effect size of 0.39 (SE = .04, p < .001, 95% CI [0.32, 0.46]). Moderator analyses demonstrated that mean effects varied across outcome domains and areas of instruction.

Keywords:

• Reading
• response to intervention
• multi-tiered system of support
• Tier 2 intervention
• meta-analysis

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the sage advice provided by Nancy Lewis and Terri Pigott, and recognize Samantha Spallone, Pam Foremski, and Christopher Tran for their assistance.

Notes

1 This procedure is documented in Gersten et al. (2017).

2 Hedges et al. (2010) demonstrated that the value selected for ρ generally does not affect results much and recommended implementing a sensitivity analysis by analyzing models with varying ρ values. We conducted sensitivity analyses using ρ values of 0 to .90 and found no meaningful differences in the results across models, indicating that our findings were robust across estimates of ρ.

3 If the authors did not provide a percentile on a nationally normed test to describe the at-risk sample, the study was not coded for this variable. Across the studies, a wide range of screening measures and operational definitions were used, and the screeners were typically not nationally normed.

4 The analysis could not include a meta-analysis of effects from outcomes in the vocabulary domain due to the small number of studies (k = 2).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by Contract Number [ED-IES-12-C-0011]. The views do not represent those of the U.S. Department of Education.