How to Read a Reading Program’s Evidence Claim
Before you rely on a program's evidence claim, check it. Ask who ran the study and who paid for it. Then ask what the independent registries say. This page reports what the reviews we hold found. We rank no programs. No study of any Learning Success program exists.
TL;DR
- Ask who ran the study and who paid for it. Then ask what the independent registries say.
- On What Works Clearinghouse, "no qualifying studies" means no study passed its strict screen. It is not proof that the program fails.
- There is no official body that awards ESSA levels. The levels are evidence standards, not prizes. An ESSA badge itself is marketing.
- To us, brain change and better reading are different claims. Ask which one a program has shown.
- We rank no programs. No study of any Learning Success program exists.
What this area covers
This page opens one of the ten areas in our research section. It reports what the studies we hold found, as strongly as they found it.
Our review of programs covers 22 that parents often meet first. It does not cover every program.
Our review marks each source as independent, mixed, or company-funded. Mixed means, for example, that the program's author took part.
We rank no programs.
The kinds of evidence you will meet
Some groups look at programs and are not paid by the sellers.
The What Works Clearinghouse is run by the US Department of Education. It screens studies of programs strictly. Evidence for ESSA is run by Johns Hopkins University. It is independent of the companies that sell programs. EdReports is independent too. It rates how well a curriculum is built, not whether it works.
You may see a badge that says a program meets ESSA evidence standards. There is no official body that awards ESSA levels. The levels are evidence standards, not prizes. Some publishers pay a firm that both runs the study and awards the badge. Some of those studies are real and reasonably designed. The badge itself is marketing. Check the independent registries yourself.
On What Works Clearinghouse, "no qualifying studies" means no study passed its strict screen. It is not proof that the program fails. No evidence is not the same as evidence that it does not work. It is also not a recommendation.
What these sites list changes over time.
What the reviews we hold found
One review looked at 22 trials of help for children with reading disabilities (Galuschka and colleagues, 2014). Phonics teaching was the only approach it confirmed for reading and spelling. The other approaches had far fewer trials. So their results are partly thin evidence, not proof they do not work.
Orton-Gillingham is a family of reading programs that teach in a multisensory way. Another review looked at studies of these programs (Stevens and colleagues, 2021). Its results for reading were positive but not statistically significant. Its authors said the studies were few and weak. To us, that makes these programs promising but unproven, not debunked.
Those findings are about groups of children, not a promise about yours.
Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme (2016) pooled the working-memory training studies. They found that people got better at working-memory tasks. Against a treated control, they found no convincing carry-over to word reading, reading comprehension or arithmetic.
Strong, Torgerson, Torgerson and Hulme (2011) pooled the controlled trials of Fast ForWord. It is a listening program sold for language and reading difficulties. They found no evidence it was effective for children's oral language or reading difficulties.
Practice reaches the thing it is practice at. Simons and colleagues (2016) reviewed brain-training programs sold on the promise of wider gains. They found good evidence for the trained task, less for closely related tasks, and little for distant ones. They also found little evidence that these programs make daily thinking better. Researchers still argue about whether some limited carry-over happens.
To us, brain change and better reading are different claims. Ask which one a program has shown.
Reading improves with reading instruction.
Questions to ask of any claim
Ask who ran the study and who paid for it. A program tested by the people who sell it is not worthless. It is also not independent. Keep both facts in mind. Ask whether it was peer-reviewed. Then ask what the independent registries say.
Ask how big the difference was, not only whether it was significant. A very large study can find a difference too small to matter.
What was measured, and is it what you want? A program can improve the exact skill it trains and not change reading at all. That is not fraud. It is a real result. The marketing can make it sound bigger.
Who was studied? A finding from a small group of adults is a finding about a small group of adults.
Watch for a real but narrow finding used to back a broad claim. Something was measured. The claim on the homepage is about something else.
A named source is stronger than an unnamed one, because you can check it.
What the research we hold does not show
No study of any Learning Success program exists.
Our review of programs covers 22 that parents often meet first. It does not cover every program.
On What Works Clearinghouse, "no qualifying studies" means no study passed its strict screen. It is not proof that the program fails. No evidence is not the same as evidence that it does not work. It is also not a recommendation.
There is no official body that awards ESSA levels. The levels are evidence standards, not prizes. An ESSA badge itself is marketing.
In Galuschka and colleagues' review (2014), approaches other than phonics had far fewer trials. So their results are partly thin evidence, not proof they do not work.
One review looked at studies of Orton-Gillingham reading programs (Stevens and colleagues, 2021). Its results for reading were positive but not statistically significant. Its authors said the studies were few and weak. To us, that makes these programs promising but unproven, not debunked.
Those findings are about groups of children, not a promise about yours.
Simons and colleagues (2016) and Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme (2016) did not end the debate. Researchers still argue about whether some limited carry-over happens.
Read what a study does not show before you read what it found.
Does Learning Success build on this?
Partly. We use one point from this page. Practice reaches the thing it is practice at. Our reading course is practice on reading and spelling words. It is not practice on a general brain skill. It does not teach comprehension, and it does not replace reading teaching.
In no case do we claim a study's result for our program.
No study of any Learning Success program exists.
You can ask every question on this page of us too.
Questions later pages will answer
Later pages in this area are planned. None of them is written yet.
- What did studies of multisensory reading programs find?
- Do brain-training and memory-training programs help with reading or math?
- What has been studied about one program, and who ran and paid for it?
- What do the review sites' ratings and badges mean?
The studies
- Galuschka K, Ise E, Krick K, Schulte-Körne G (2014). PLoS ONE 9(2):e89900. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0089900. Correction: PLoS ONE 9(8):e105843.
- Stevens, Austin, Moore, Scammacca, Boucher and Vaughn (2021). Exceptional Children. DOI 10.1177/0014402921993406.
- Simons, Boot, Charness, Gathercole, Chabris, Hambrick and Stine-Morrow (2016). "Do 'Brain-Training' Programs Work?" Psychological Science in the Public Interest 17(3):103–186. DOI 10.1177/1529100616661983.
- Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science 11(4):512–534. DOI 10.1177/1745691616635612.
- Strong, Torgerson, Torgerson and Hulme (2011; online 2010). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52(3):224–235.
Pick one program you are looking at. Find the page where it describes its evidence. Write down who ran each study and who paid for it. If the page does not say, that is your first question.
”What to do tonightCommon questions from parents
Does an "ESSA" badge mean a program works?
There is no official body that awards ESSA levels. The levels are evidence standards, not prizes. Some publishers pay a firm that both runs the study and awards the badge. Some of those studies are real and reasonably designed. The badge itself is marketing. Check the independent registries yourself. On What Works Clearinghouse, "no qualifying studies" means no study passed its strict screen. It is not proof that the program fails.
Do brain-training programs help with reading?
Simons and colleagues (2016) reviewed brain-training programs sold on the promise of wider gains. They found good evidence for the trained task, less for closely related tasks, and little for distant ones. They also found little evidence that these programs make daily thinking better. Researchers still argue about whether some limited carry-over happens. Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme (2016) pooled the working-memory training studies. They found that people got better at working-memory tasks. Against a treated control, they found no convincing carry-over to word reading, reading comprehension or arithmetic. Reading improves with reading instruction.
Has Learning Success been studied?
No study of any Learning Success program exists. You can ask every question on this page of us too.