Language Programs Ranked by Fluency Outcomes

One criticism I often see of meta-analysis is that different studies are measuring different outcomes. For example one reading program study might measure letter ID and phonemic awareness, whereas another might measure word ID and comprehension. Even more problematic, some studies list their impact without listing their measurement criteria. Moreover, the demographics of different studies are often very different, and different age demographics lead to different results. Earlier this year I put out a large, but non-peer reviewed meta-analysis of language programs. After doing so, I have often gotten the question, what is the best program for my specific situation. In order to address this question, and to help correct for the above listed (valid) criticism of meta-analysis, I have decided to put a small series of sub-analyses that break down my original results according to more specific outcomes, and rank programs based on their effect sizes, according to these outcomes. 


This analysis provides more specific outcomes for people to look at. However, it also lowers the total sample size and statistical power of the analysis. This is especially true, as most studies only look at a small number of specific outcomes, with this in mind, readers should note that most language programs will be excluded from most sub-analyses, due to a lack of research. If you would like to learn more about the methodology behind this analysis, you can find the original sourced article here: 


On this page, you can find language programs ranked by effect size for fluency outcomes. Please note that this page will be updated over time, as I add new research.



J, DuCette. 1999. An Evaluation of the

“100 Book Challenge Program”. Temple University. Retrieved from <>.


A, Gray. (2020). Zoology One. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from <>.

Efficacy Evaluation.


Corrective Reading:


Benner, G. J., Michael, E., Ralston, N. C., & Lee, E. O. (2022). The impact of supplemental word recognition strategies on students with reading difficulties. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1) 837-856. 


Benner, Gregory & Kinder, Diane & Beaudoin, Kathleen & Stein, Marcy. (2005). The Effects of the "Corrective Reading Decoding" Program on the Basic Reading Skills and Social Adjustment of Students with High-Incidence Disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction.


Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E. D., & Epstein, M. H. (1980). Direct Instruction: Effects on Oral and Written Language Comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 70–76. 



M, Gallagher. (2019). S.P.I.R.E. Intensive Reading Intervention: A Comparative Analysis at Second Through Sixth. Spire. Retrieved from <>. 


M, Wilger. (2008). Spring Independent SchoolDistrict (ISD),TX 2007-2008 SchoolYear. Auto Skill International. Retrieved from <>. 


A, Grippi. (2006). Teaching the Disruptive Child to Read: An Evaluation of the SPIRE Reading Program. International Journal of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from <>. 



C, Buttler. (2013). The impact of REWARDS on reading skills of students with learning disabilities. California State University. <>.


M, Shippen. (2004). A Comparison of Two Direct Instruction Reading Programs for Urban Middle School Students. Remedial and Special Education. Retrieved from <>. 


Anita Archer, Mary Gleason, and Vicky Vachon. (No known date). Unidentified RCT Study. Broken link: <>. 


I, Klee. (2015). The Effect Using the REWARDS® Reading Program on Vowel Sounds, Word Part, and Prefix and Suffix Identification in Multi-Syllabic Words: A Case Report. Education Research Quarterly. Retrieved from <>. 


R, Autzen. (2021). REWARDS: A Reading Intervention Program to Address Grade Level Reading Ability. Undergraduate Scholarly Showcase Proceedings. Retrieved from <>. 


R, Kerl. (2018). Timing is Everything: Adapting Rewards Intermediate For 4th And 5th Grade Striving Readers. Hamline University. Retrieved from <>.

The Learning Company. (2020). HMH Into Reading Implementation Study Research Study Results 2019-2020. Retrieved from <>.  


R, Eddy, Et al. (2020). QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. Cobblestone. Retrieved from <>. 


HMH. (2022). Research Into Reading Research Foundations. Retrieved from <>. 


Voyageur Sopris. (2022). Reading Intervention. Retrieved from <>. 


Reading Mastery:

C, Schieffer. (2002). An Analysis of the Reading Mastery Program: Effective Components and Research Review. Journal of Direct Instruction. Volume 2: Issue 2. Retrieved from <>. 


Yu, L., & Rachor, R. (2000, April). The two-year evaluation of the three-year Direct Instruction program, in an urban public school system. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.


O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Cole, K. N., & Mills, P. E. (1993). Two approaches to reading instruction with children with disabilities: does program design make a difference?. Exceptional children, 59(4), 312–323.


The Development of Early Academic Success: The Impact of Direct Instruction’s Reading Mastery. (2010). Journal of Behavior Assessment & Intervention in Children, 1(1), 2–24.