Effectiveness of accelerated reader on children's reading outcomes: A meta‐analytic review

Accelerated reader (AR) is a computerized reading program commonly used in schools. The program aims to enhance students' reading achievement and encourage students to read more through goal setting and frequent reading practice. A meta‐analytic review of the AR was conducted to analyse its eff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Dyslexia (Chichester, England) England), 2023-02, Vol.29 (1), p.22-39
Main Authors: Tischner, Clair M., Ebner, Sara E., Aspiranti, Kathleen B., Klingbeil, David A., Fedewa, Alicia L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Success
accelerated reader
Child
Children
Dissertations & theses
Doctoral Dissertations
Dyslexia
Effect Size
Effectiveness
evidence‐based intervention
Goal Orientation
Humans
Learning outcomes
Meta-analysis
Moderators
Reading
Reading achievement
Reading acquisition
Reading Difficulties
Reading Improvement
Reading instruction
Reading Programs
Regression models
Schools
Student attitudes
Student Improvement
Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Accelerated reader (AR) is a computerized reading program commonly used in schools. The program aims to enhance students' reading achievement and encourage students to read more through goal setting and frequent reading practice. A meta‐analytic review of the AR was conducted to analyse its effectiveness as an evidence‐based intervention for improving student reading achievement, attitude, and motivation. This study investigated potential moderating variables, including publication type, participant, and study characteristics that impact student reading outcomes. A total of 44 studies from peer‐reviewed journal articles and dissertations met the inclusion criteria. Participants included 16,653 students enrolled in elementary, middle, and high school. Hedges' g effect sizes measures suggest pretest–posttest one‐group AR studies have moderate effects (g = 0.541) while comparison group AR studies have marginal effects (g = 0.278). A meta‐regression model of six potential categorical moderators of comparison group studies indicted no significant moderators. Implications and the need for further research regarding evidence‐based and culturally appropriate reading interventions are discussed.
ISSN:1076-9242
1099-0909
DOI:10.1002/dys.1730