Reading Program Grading System
The education programs on this website are primarily reviewed by the strength of the research, specifically on that program. Below you can see the criterion, by which programs are marked.
Peer reviewed meta-analysis found an ES <1.0
Peer Reviewed Meta-analysis found an ES .7-1
More than 4 studies, with a mean ES above .70
Or a peer reviewed meta-analysis found an ES of .60-.69
1 High quality study showing an ES of <.70
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .50-.59
1 high quality study showing an ES of .50-.69 and theoretically sound
Or research based: IE there are no direct studies and most of the program principles are well evidenced, within the meta-analysis literature.
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .40-.49
Somewhat research based: IE there are no direct studies and some, but not most of the principles are evidence based.
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .30-.39
The program is not research based, IE most of the principles are not supported by the meta-analysis data.
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .20-29
The program principles have been shown to have a low impact in meta-analysis
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .10-.19
The program principles have been shown to have a statistically insignificant ES.
Or a meta-analysis found an ES of .01-.09
The program principles have been shown to have a negative ES
Or a meta-analysis found a small, but negative ES
A meta-analysis found the program to have an ES <-.20.
Many language programs have little to no high quality research, so I decided to include a secondary grading system that looks at only qualitative factors. That being said, the primary principle of which PNG was founded on was that in order for an idea to be scientific, it must be proven. I therefore put considerably higher weight on the overall grading system, than I do for the qualitative one. The qualitative grading system, is still numerically based and awards grades, based on the programs inclusion of what we see as the most crucial components, as seen within the scientific literature. For full language programs, marks are awarded for the following criterion: proper scaffolding (IE foundational skills, transition to comprehensive skills), individualized instruction (IE the program individualizes its curriculum to students needs), explicit instruction, phonemic awareness instruction, phonological instruction, morphological instruction, fluency instruction, comprehension instruction, sight word instruction, and writing/spelling instruction. Programs are then given a grade based on their percentage of inclusion. For example, if a program has 6/10 marks, it gets a C. Any program with less than 5/10, gets an automatic fail.
For reading intervention programs, marks are awarded for the following principles being included: proper scaffolding, direct instruction, individualization, phonetic instruction, phonemic awareness instruction, morphological instruction, and fluency instruction. Any program with less than 4 marks gets an automatic fail.