Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse


References

 

Meets WWC evidence standards

Bullock, J. C. (2005). Effects of the Accelerated Reader on the reading performance of third, fourth, and fifth-grade students in one western Oregon elementary school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 56–2529.

Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations

Nunnery, J. A., & Ross, S. M. (2007). The effects of the School Renaissance program on student achievement in reading and mathematics. Research in the Schools, 14(1), 40–59.

Additional source:
Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S. M., & Goldfeder, E. (2003). The effect of School Renaissance on TAAS scores in the McKinney ISD. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Studies that fall outside the Adolescent Literacy review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210–227). New York: Guilford Press. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Anderson, A. (2000). Implementation of the Accelerated Reader computerized management program. Unpublished master’s project, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Anderson, D. (1995). The implementation of the Accelerated Reader computerized reading management program. Unpublished master’s thesis, College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Anderson, D. K., & Lawrence, C. B. (1995). Accelerated Reader: A supplemental reading program tool to enhance student performance and motivate children to read at Bancroft School, grades 3–6, Minneapolis Public Schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mankato State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Anderson, J. R. (2001). The impact of the Accelerated Reader program on student’s [sic] learning, motivation, and attitude towards reading. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of New York College at Brockport. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Apthorp, H. S., Dean, C. B., Florian, J. E., Lauer, P. A., Reichardt, R., & Snow-Renner, R. (2001). Standards in classroom practice: Research synthesis. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Arkebaure, C., MacDonald, C., & Palmer, C. (2002). Improving reading achievement through the implementation of a balanced literacy approach. Unpublished master’s research project, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bailey, C. (2007). Winning the Accelerated Reader game: The effects of student choice and peer sharing on attitudes toward independent reading in an Accelerated Reader program. In D. A. McAllister & S. C. Fritch (Eds.), Culminating experience: Action research projects (Vol. 8, part 1, spring 2006, pp. 15–48). Chattanooga, TN: University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Barrett, K., & Kreiser, D. (2002). Improving student attitude and achievement in reading through daily reading practice and teacher intervention strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Barsema, M., Harms, L., & Pogue, C. (2002). Improving reading achievement through the use of multiple reading strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Barton, J. O. (2000). A comparison of the effect of basal reading with Accelerated Reader to basal reading without Accelerated Reader on fifth-grade reading comprehension achievement scores (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08A), 78–3105. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Battraw, J. L. (2002). The hidden messages of secondary reading programs: What students learn vs. what teachers teach. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Belgarde, K. A. (1999). Accelerated Reader motivates English as a second language students to read. Unpublished master’s thesis, Minnesota State University–Moorhead. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bielby, L. (2005). Accelerated Reader student reading program: An investigative study of student reading level growth as affected by the Accelerated Reader reading program. Unpublished field study, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Biggers, D. (2001). The argument against Accelerated Reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 72–75. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Blair, H. B. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to choose and implement effective methods for teaching emergent readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Blanchard, K. M. (1996). The comparison study of the Accelerated Reader program usage and reading comprehension gains. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mankato State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bobo, J. C. (2001). A comparison of two uses of the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, SC. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bodeau, A. W. (2001). A study of fifth grade student attitudes toward the Accelerated Reader program in the Osseo, Minnesota school district. Unpublished master’s thesis, St. Cloud State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Bohlander, C. C. (2006). The effects of Accelerated Reader on reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northern State University, Aberdeen, SD. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Bolt, D. (2004). HLM analysis of effect of Reading Renaissance implementation on various reading curricula. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bolt, D. (2005). Reading Renaissance and Math Renaissance predict state test score performance: Independent analysis. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bonebrake, J. C. (2001). Accelerated Reader program helps students improve reading skills and reading comprehension. Unpublished research project, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Bork, R. D. (1999). The effectiveness of the Accelerated Reader program on improving student instructional reading levels as measured by the standardized test for assessment of reading (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08A), 99–2854. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Borman, G., & Dowling, N. M. (2004). Testing the Reading Renaissance program theory: A multilevel analysis of student and classroom effects on reading achievement. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bowers, L. K. (2002). The effect of Accelerated Reader on students’ reading levels. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bowling, B. L. (2001). The relationship of the recreational reading habits and book selection practices of fifth grade students involved in the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Alabama State University, Montgomery. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Brantley, L. J. (2001). Reading Renaissance teacher intervention strategies for student success: An action research study. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Briggs, K. L., & Clark, C. (1997). Reading programs for students in the lower elementary grades: What does the research say? Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Brogan, J. A. (2001). The effectiveness of Accelerated Reader on reading achievement and motivation of sixth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California–Stanislaus. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Brown, C. A. (2001, November). Using computers in the classroom to promote generative strategies for reading comprehension. Paper presented at the 24th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Bryant, W. E. (2008). Effect of the Accelerated Reader program on academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(02A), 90–443. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Calhoun, V. L. (2007). The effects of a supplemental program on the reading achievement of learning-disabled students (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(04A), 131–1238. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

Callard-Szulgit, R. (2005). Teaching the gifted in an inclusion classroom: Activities that work. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Campbell, J. P. (2000). A comparison of computerized and traditional instruction in the area of elementary reading (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(03A), 77–952. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Carlson, R. V. (2003). Follow-up study of rural schools implementing CSR programs in the Southwest. Research report. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Castillo, D. (2002). Effect of Accelerated Reader on the reading comprehension of third-grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Dominguez Hills. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Chaney, C. W. (2002). An investigation of the relationships between Accelerated Reader and other factors and value-added achievement in Tennessee public schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee–Knoxville. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Cherry, S. R. (2001). An examination of the effects of Accelerated Reader and repeated reading on the reading fluency of third grade students reading below grade level. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Christianson, P. (2005). Is Accelerated Reader a viable reading enhancement program for an elementary school? Unpublished alternate plan paper, Minnesota State University–Mankato. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Clegg, C. W. (1997). Accelerated Reader: A study of the effects on reading comprehension and attitudes in the fifth grade. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Clements, T. S. (2004). A study of the perceptions of teachers and administrators regarding the impact of the Accelerated Reader program on student reading experiences, attitudes, and habits (Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate Institute). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(02A), 75–452. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2005). CSRQ center report on elementary school comprehensive school reform models. Washington, DC: Author & American Institutes for Research. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2005). Review of School Renaissance by the Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center (CSRQ center). Washington, DC: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Compton, C. L. (2001). Integrating literature discussion groups with sustained silent reading to increase fifth grade reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Boise State University, ID. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Conley, D. (1997). Effect of Accelerated Reader program on the reading achievement of third-grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tennessee at Martin. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Conrath, R. A. (2007). A comparative study for the effects of a supplemental reading program on eighth-grade students’ reading comprehension growth (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(01A), 82–86. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Cousin, S. L., Klotz, J. J., & Kiick, C. A. (2000). An analysis of one school’s attempt to combat white flight. Bowling Green, KY: Mid-South Educational Research Association. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Cristancho, S. J. (2003). Computer based reading programs: A comparison of the Academy of Reading program and the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Maryville University of Saint Louis, MO. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Cuddeback, M. (2000). The use of Accelerated Reader with emergent readers. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Cuddeback, M. J., & Ceprano, M. A. (2002). The use of Accelerated Reader with emergent readers. Reading Improvement, 39(2), 89.

DeRosier, C. A. (2001). Improving reading comprehension and reading levels by using the Accelerated Reader program with seventh and eighth graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, Minnesota State University–Mankato. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Dickerson, K. A. (2005). The relationship between Accelerated Reader points and postsecondary education admission factors (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 145–2530. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Dinner, L. (2003). The use of Accelerated Reader software to increase reading motivation in students with disabilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

DiSalle, K. L. (2005). Using Accelerated Reader within an inclusive reading program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toledo, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Doolittle, C. R. (1992). A study of the effects and attitudes of fourth grade students using a computer assisted incentive reading program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Dayton, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

DuVall, K. B. (2002). Increasing student achievement through the use of a reading strategy Accelerated Reader: An action research project. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Eaton, D. D. (2003). The effects of Accelerated Reader on reading achievement. Maryville, MO: Northwest Missouri State University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Education Commission of the States. (1999). Accelerated Reader. Denver, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Eliason, B. (2006). Effects of Accelerated Reader on student attitudes toward reading. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(9-A), 3252. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Elmore, O. C. (2005). Analysis of the principal’s perceptions of the implementation and impact of the Accelerated Reader and other selected reading strategies used by Texas Gold Performance elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(04A), 260–1223. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Erwin, H. K. (2001). Advanced readers and the Accelerated Reader program: Attitudes and motivation: “I’m on the pink dot.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Evans, A. (2004). Increased reading levels through the use of Accelerated Reader. Unpublished master’s thesis, Graceland University, Cedar Rapids, IA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Everhart, N., Dresang, E. T., & Kotrla, B. (2005, July). Accelerated Reader and information policy, information literacy, and knowledge management: US and international implications. Information Leadership in a Culture of Change: Conference Proceedings 2005, Hong Kong. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Facemire, N. E. (2000). The effect of the Accelerated Reader on the reading comprehension of third graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, Salem-Teikyo University, Salem, WV. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Faddis, B. J., Beam, M., Hahn, K. J., Willardson, M., Sipe, D., & Ahrens-Gray, P. (2000). The implementation of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program: The work of 40 schools in seven Midwest states. Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Fandrey, A. L. (2004). The role of Accelerated Reader and great leaps in improving the reading fluency and comprehension of third grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queens University of Charlotte, NC. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Finch, K. H. (1998). How using the Accelerated Reader program has affected classroom management and student reading achievement in the Blytheville intermediate schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Central Arkansas, Conway. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Fisher, A. (2000). A study to assess the impact of Reading Renaissance in high school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Boise State University, ID. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006). Review of Accelerated Reader by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR). Tallahassee, FL: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Focarile, D. A. (2006). The Accelerated Reader program and students’ attitude towards reading (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(10A), 110–3599. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Foes, K., & Sloan, M. (1999). Improving student independent reading skills through direct phonics instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Franks, J. (2007). Using Accelerated Reading as a motivator in the classroom. Unpublished master’s project, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Friesen, C. (2004). Improving reading in grade three students. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Fritz, R. C. (2001). Accelerated Reader: A valuable tool for increasing reading achievement and motivation of at-risk fourth and fifth graders? Unpublished master’s thesis, Boise State University, ID. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Ganter, J. (2001). Capture the power of reading. DeKalb, IL: Illinois Periodicals Online. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Garner, K. L. (2005). The effects of Renaissance Learning’s model classroom certification program on implementation of the Accelerated Reader program (Master’s thesis, Central Missouri State University). Masters Abstracts International, 44(01), 56–74. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Gibson, M. T. (2002). An investigation of the effectiveness of the Accelerated Reader program used with middle school at-risk students in a rural school system (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10A), 117–3479. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Girard, P. A. (2003). Does the Accelerated Reader program motivate fifth grade students to read beyond the classroom? Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Godmanchester Primary School. (2000). Inspection report: Godmanchester primary school, UK. Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, UK: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Goodman, G. (1999). The Reading Renaissance/Accelerated Reader program: Pinal County school-to-work evaluation report. Tucson, AZ: Creative Research Associates, Inc. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Green, P., & Fehring, H. (2000). The impact of the Accelerated Reader pilot program in Australia. Ashwood, Victoria, AU: Renaissance Learning Australia. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Gribbon, L. (2005). Review of Accelerated Reader by schoolzone.co.uk LTD. Cheltenham, UK: Schoolzone. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Griffin, T. F. (2000). A causal comparative study on the effects of Accelerated Reader (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(08A), 99–3106. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Groce, R. D., & Groce, E. C. (2005). Deconstructing the Accelerated Reader program. Reading Horizons, 46(1), 17–30. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Hagerman, T. E. (2003). A quasi-experimental study on the effects of Accelerated Reader at middle school (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 124–2027. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Halnan, N. R. (2000). An investigation of the impact of the Accelerated Reader program on standardized test scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ottawa University, Phoenix, AZ. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Halsted, S. (1996). Does Accelerated Reader really improve reading scores? Unpublished master’s thesis, Ottawa University, Phoenix, AZ. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it does not provide adequate information to determine whether it uses an outcome that is valid or reliable.

Harrell, J. P. (1999). Independent readers increase library use (Master’s thesis, Grand Valley State University). Masters Abstracts International, 38(02), 37–322. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hart, S. S. (2007). Accelerated Reader in a primary school: An evaluation of time spent on classroom implementation and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(04A), 122–1384. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hayes, L. J. (2002). The role of the media specialist in the implementation of Accelerated Reader. Unpublished alternate plan paper, Minnesota State University–Mankato. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Heil, D. A. (2001). Changes in attitudes towards reading using the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Holloway, A. (2007). The effects of Accelerated Reader on the attitudes and reading habits of first grade students in a mid-southern state (Doctoral dissertation, Union University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11A), 108–4610. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Holman, D., & McLin, A. (2001). Effects of Reading Renaissance training: Faculty reactions to compressed in-service. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Holman, G. G. (1998). Correlational study to determine the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading comprehension of fourth- and fifth-grade students in Early County, Georgia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sarasota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(03A), 82–771. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Holmes, C. T., & Brown, C. L. (2003). A controlled evaluation of a total school improvement process, School Renaissance. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Department of Educational Administration. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Holmes, C. T., Brown, C. L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Promoting academic success for all students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(3), 141–147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Howard, C. A. (1999). An evaluation of the Accelerated Reader program in grades 3–5 on reading vocabulary, comprehension, and attitude in an urban southeastern school district in Virginia (Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(02A), 112–547. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Howell, V. J. (2006). A school without Accelerated Reader and the impact it has on students’ reading scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, College of St. Scholastica, Duluth, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Husman, J., & Brem, S. (2005). Findings from a three-year study of Reading Renaissance in a Title I urban elementary school. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Husman, J., Brem, S., & Duggan, M. A. (2005). Student goal orientation and formative assessment. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 355–359. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Institute for Academic Excellence. (1997). Critical thinking and literature-based reading. Madison, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Institute for Academic Excellence & Reading Renaissance. (1998). Reading Renaissance I: Using learning information systems to create world-class readers. Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Institute for Academic Excellence & Reading Renaissance. (1998). Reading Renaissance II: Building model classrooms, libraries, and schools with learning information systems. Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

James, J. W. (1998). Accelerated Reader: Its impact on reading attitude and interests of fourth graders. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Alabama State University, Montgomery. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Jarrell, D. K. (2000). The effects of computer access on reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(05A), 93–1807. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Johnson, M. (2003). Does Accelerated Reader motivate and improve reading achievement for students with a learning disability? Unpublished master’s thesis, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, WI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Johnson, R., & Howard, C. (2003). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading comprehension of pupils in grades three, four, and five. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 87–96. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kambarian, V. (2001). The role of reading instruction and the effect of a reading management system on at-risk students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University, MO. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Kellen, C. (1999). A study of the effect of the Accelerated Reader program on elementary students’ reading behavior. Unpublished master’s thesis, St. Cloud State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kerns, G. M. (2005). Moving from good to great: The evolution of learning information systems in Milford school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(12A), 157–4416. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

King, G. M. (2001). Improving reading skills through identifying and utilizing students’ learning styles (Doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(07A), 112–2647. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

King, M. A. (2003). An investigation of the Accelerated Reader program and students’ motivation to read. Unpublished masters thesis, Bowling Green State University, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Knapik, P. J. (2002). The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on student achievement: A comparison study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(06A), 296–2027. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Knox, M. L. (1996). An experimental study of the effects of the Accelerated Reader program and a teacher directed program on reading comprehension and vocabulary of fourth and fifth grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10A), 122–4208. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it is a randomized controlled trial in which the combination of overall and differential attrition rates exceeds WWC standards for this area, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Kohel, P. R. (2003). Using Accelerated Reader: Its impact on the reading levels and Delaware state testing scores of 10th grade students in Delaware’s Milford High School (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10A), 106–3507. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Kortz, W. J. (2002). Measuring the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the third grade English language learners’ reading achievement in dual language programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Krashen, S. (2002). Accelerated Reader: Does it work? If so, why? School Libraries in Canada, 22(2), 24–26. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Krashen, S. (2005). Accelerated Reader: Evidence still lacking. Knowledge Quest, 33(3), 48–49. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Krashen, S. D. (2003). The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of Accelerated Reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(2), 9–30. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Westport, CT & Portsmouth, NH: Libraries Unlimited & Heinemann. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say: Final report. Arlington, VA: SRI International. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Kunz, J. R. R. (1999). Does the Accelerated Reader program have an impact on the improvement of children’s reading scores in Illinois? (Doctoral dissertation, Saint Louis University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08A), 110–2839. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Kyllo, A. (2004). Does Accelerated Reader have positive and motivational effects on student reading levels and student attitude toward reading? Unpublished action research paper, Winona State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lamme, L. L. (2003). A literature perspective on Accelerated Reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(2), 37–45. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Lawson, S. (2000). Accelerated Reader boosts student achievement. California School Library Association Journal, 23(2), 11–12. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lenko, S. L. (2005). Effects of teacher’s active role in Accelerated Reader with elementary students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Lewis, S. C. S. (2005). Evaluating alternative methodologies to teaching reading to sixth-grade students and the association with student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(10A), 105–3599. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Ligas, M. R. (2002). Evaluation of Broward County Alliance of Quality Schools project. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 7(2), 117–139. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.

Magoteaux, K. J. (2001). Motivation of fourth grade students toward participation in the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Dayton, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mallette, M. H., Henk, W. A., & MeInick, S. A. (2004). The influence of Accelerated Reader on the affective literacy orientations of intermediate grade students. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 73–84. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Marcelt, D. M. (2001). Will the use of the Accelerated Reader program improve student reading scores? Unpublished master’s thesis, Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Martinez, S. (2007). A survey research of reading methods used by New Mexico middle school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Mathis, D. (1996). The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on reading comprehension. Unpublished report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 555). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McCarthy, C. A. (2003). Is the tail wagging the dog? An analysis of Accelerated Reader and the influence of reading rewards on learning and library media centers. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 20(3), 23. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

McDurmon, A. (2001). The effects of guided and repeated reading on English language learners. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

McGlinn, J. M., & Parrish, A. (2002). Accelerating ESL students’ reading progress with Accelerated Reader. Reading Horizons, 42(3), 175. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McGovern, M. W., Romine, B., Brinson, B., & Rushing, L. R. (1999). The Accelerated Reader program: A contextualized evaluation. In D. Rea & R. Warkentin (Eds.), Empowering youth-at-risk with skills for school and life (pp. 93–98). Statesboro, GA: Georgia Southern University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McKnight, D. (1992). Using the Accelerated Reader and other strategies and varied techniques to improve the reading attitudes of fifth-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Davie, FL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

McMillan, M. K. (1996). The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading comprehension and the reading motivation of fourth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(04A), 75–1542. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Melton, C. M., Smothers, B. C., Anderson, E., Fulton, R., Replogle, W. H., & Thomas, L. (2004). A study of the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on fifth-grade students’ reading achievement growth. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 18–24. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Additional source:
Melton, C. M. (2002). A study of the effects of the Accelerated Reader program on fifth-grade students’ reading achievement growth (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(11A), 69–3897.

Metz, M. (2001). Differences in reading levels of kindergarten students who have and have not used the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Michalik, C. (2002). The Accelerated Reader program and reading achievement in sixth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, OCLC accession number 52274076. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (2005). Final report: High-needs schools—what does it take to beat the odds? Aurora, CO: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Additional source:
Apthorp, H. S. (2002). School practices for helping children meet language arts standards: Preliminary findings from McREL’s study of high-performing, high-needs schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Miller, W. R. (1991). Comparison of the microcomputer reading program Accelerated Reader and traditional instructional strategies on reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Natchitoches. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Mitchell, J. P. (1997). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program on third grade ITBS reading comprehension scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, Mercer University, Macon, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Monk, S. R. (2002). The relationship between Accelerated Reader and academic achievement on reading comprehension scores of 8th grade students at a selected middle school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Milligan College, Johnson City, TN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Moore, C. E. L. (2002). A narrative inquiry of the Accelerated Reader program: Contributions, concerns, and future directions (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(10A), 186–3508. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Morse, D. J. (1999). Accelerated Reader: Does it work? (Master’s thesis, Grand Valley State University). Masters Abstracts International, 37(06), 46–1594. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Moyer, M. (2006). Accelerated Reader sparks high school reading excitement. Knowledge Quest, 35(1), 34–39. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Mulvehill, A. (2005). Student attitudes regarding the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, University of West Georgia, LaGrange. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Nalls, T. S. (2003). The use of direct media center support to improve student participation in Accelerated Reader: An action evaluation study. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Nelson, D. M. (2006). English language learners (ELLs) previewing literature on digital curriculum to improve reading comprehension and motivation on Accelerated Reader tests. Unpublished master’s thesis, Hamline University, Saint Paul, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Nunnery, J. A., & Ross, S. M. (2003). The effect of School Renaissance on student achievement in two Mississippi school districts. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research in Education Policy and Education Innovations. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S. M., & McDonald, A. (2006). A randomized experimental evaluation of the impact of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance implementation on reading achievement in grades 3 to 6. Journal of Education for Students Placed At-Risk, 11(1), 1–18. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it is a randomized controlled trial in which the combination of overall and differential attrition rates exceeds WWC standards for this area, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Additional source:
Ross, S., Nunnery, J. A., & Goldfeder, E. (2004). A randomized experiment on the effects of Accelerated Reader/Reading Renaissance in an urban school district: Final evaluation report (study 2). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.

Ostrom, J. (2007). A study of reading achievement of students participating in the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Minnesota State University–Mankato. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Page, P. D. (1999). The perception of teachers regarding the Accelerated Reader program at an upper east Tennessee elementary school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Milligan College, Johnson City, TN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Paul, T. (1996). Patterns of reading practice. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Paul, T. (2003). Guided independent reading: An examination of the reading practice database and the scientific research supporting guided independent reading as implemented in Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Pauley, J. F. (2000). The effect of the Accelerated Reader program on attitude and achievement of third graders. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Pavonetti, L. M., Brimmer, K. M., & Cipielewski, J. F. (2003). Accelerated Reader: What are the lasting effects on the reading habits of middle school students exposed to Accelerated Reader in elementary grades? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(4), 300. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Peak, J., & Dewalt, M. W. (1993, February). Effects of the computerized Accelerated Reader program on reading achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater Beach, FL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Peak, J. P., & Dewalt, M. W. (1994). Reading achievement: Effects of computerized reading management and enrichment. ERS Spectrum, 12(1), 31–35. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Persinger, J. M. (2001). What are the characteristics of a successful implementation of Accelerated Reader? Knowledge Quest, 29(5), 30. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Platt, M. (2001). The effectiveness of a computer-assisted reading program on eighth grade SAT-9 reading test scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Stanislaus. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Poppe, R. L. (2005). Reading motivation in upper elementary students: How children explain reading for pleasure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Pratt, M. O. (1999). A study of the computerized reading management program, Accelerated Reader, and its effect on reading among primary grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Pritchard, R. D. (1998). An analysis of fifth grade students’ attitudes toward reading after using the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Dayton, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Pugh, T. (2005). Accelerated Reader: The effects on California standards test scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Stanislaus. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Putman, S. M. (2004). Effects of Accelerated Reader on reading motivation and achievement of fourth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(02A), 124–415. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Putman, S. M. (2005). Computer-based reading technology in the classroom: The affective influence of performance contingent point accumulation on 4th grade students. Reading Research & Instruction, 45(1), 19–38. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Putman, S. M. (2007). Does the accumulation of points really equate to higher motivation to read? College Reading Association Yearbook, 28, 79–94. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1992). 1992 national reading study and theory of reading practice. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1993). National study of literature-based reading: How literature-based reading improves both reading and math ability. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1997). Learning information system effects on reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Additional source:
Paul, T., Swanson, S., Zhang, W., & Hehenberger, L. (1997). Learning information system effects on reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies. Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Accelerated Reader to model certified school: Harris Elementary increases Stanford 9 reading scores 10.5 percentile ranks in two years. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). California students achieve 28 percent higher Stanford 9 reading scores after only one semester of Accelerated Reader implementation. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). District achieves 10-year sustained success with elementary and middle school reading program. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). District shows significant gains on Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Districtwide Reading Renaissance implementation results in all eight elementary schools in Monroe County scoring an “A” in reading on the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Georgia elementary school achieves growth in ITBS scores through Reading Renaissance implementation. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Mississippi elementary school documents dramatic gains in reading and library circulation. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Nebraska students achieve two years’ growth in one year. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Reading gains reported at Indiana middle school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Reading growth nearly triples and library circulation increases through extended Renaissance implementation. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Reading Renaissance attributed to above-average reading growth in a Texas school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Reading Renaissance helps Tennessee school outgain national and state norms in all subjects. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Reading Renaissance leads to increased test scores. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Renaissance implementation narrows the achievement gap by more than 50 percent. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Test scores improve and discipline problems decrease at Iowa elementary school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (1999). Texas school district increases test scores, narrows the gap with Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Accelerated Reader boosts student achievement. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Alabama elementary school receives governor’s trophy for most improvement after implementing Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Chicago inner-city school raises test scores significantly. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Longitudinal study shows New York school boosts of Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) reading scores. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Nebraska school achieves more than one year’s reading growth in just one semester. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). North Carolina middle school raises test scores and becomes a “school of distinction.” Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Number of students meeting or exceeding state standard on Washington Assessment of Student Learning increases. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Portrait of a benchmark school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2000). Student attitudes toward reading improve at an Illinois elementary school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). A study of Accelerated Reader model and master schools and performance on the Mississippi curriculum reference test. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Accelerated Reader has positive impact on reading growth in New Zealand boys’ high school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Alaska elementary school achieves success with Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Arkansas school sees schoolwide improvements in reading achievement. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). California school exceeds academic performance index targets for two straight years. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) survey: How Renaissance fits the CSRD criteria. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Early literacy survey: How Renaissance supports Reading Excellence Act (REA) goals. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). First graders at Alabama school make great strides in reading achievement in 8 months. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Georgia primary school reading gains remarkable for 5 consecutive years. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Kansas middle school students improve reading achievement and attitudes toward reading after only nine weeks of Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Maine middle school achieves academic success with Renaissance comprehensive schoolwide improvement process. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Reading percentiles increase by more than 10 percentiles at Nebraska elementary school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Reading Renaissance and Math Renaissance provide foundation for academic program in New Mexico school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2001). Virginia elementary students surpass state averages on standards test. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Accelerated Reader software and best practices key scientifically based research summary. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Accelerating ESL students’ reading progress with Accelerated Reader. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Arizona elementary school demonstrates long-term growth on SAT 9. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Elementary school achieves big gains on Michigan educational assessment program. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Inner-city New York school with 88% poverty rate triples ITBS test performance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Inner-city school more than doubles passing rates on North Carolina end-of-grade test. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Pennsylvania reading scores nearly double in five years. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Reading ability levels increase in Scottish schools. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Reading proficiency more than doubles on Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Results from a three-year statewide implementation of Reading Renaissance in Idaho. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2002). Third-graders surpass state scores on Illinois standards achievement test. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2003). Achievement gap at a Texas elementary school reduced by 88%. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2003). Sixth-grade ITBS reading scores increase 20 percentage points. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2004). Average ITBS reading scores at a Harlem elementary school rise 5 percentiles per year. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2004). Average number of students meeting Delaware state standards increases by more than 15 percentage points. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2004). California school shows growth on API four years in a row. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2004). Percentage of students scoring at or above grade level on Minnesota comprehensive assessment increases 43.5 points. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2005). An increase in Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) reading scores and improved student attitudes about reading accredited to Reading Renaissance. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2005). Florida school improves from a C to an A on the Florida A+ Accountability Plan. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2005). Iowa school boosts ITBS reading and math scores. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2005). Texas junior high school makes extensive gains on the TAKS. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2005). Washington school dramatically improves reading and math state test scores. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Accelerated Reader contributes to Ontario school’s reading success. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Iowa elementary school pairs best practices with student motivation and sees significant gains in ITBS scores. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Kentucky school district makes great strides in reading with AR. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Library circulation increases with Accelerated Reader: An analysis of 3 journal articles, 1 dissertation, and 20 case studies. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Ontario secondary school excels in reading. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Reading and math state test scores climb at rural Texas school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2006). Special report: Facts and myths about the reading gap and how to close it. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Renaissance Learning. (2007). Reading more and monitoring progress spell success for Texas elementary school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2007). Test scores on the rise and library growth skyrocketing at Indiana elementary school. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Renaissance Learning. (2008). A comparative analysis of TCAP reading-language arts scores between students who used Accelerated Reader and students who used sustained silent reading. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Richard, G. I. (1999). Effects of Accelerated Reader on attitude and comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Richmond, R. F. (2005). The effectiveness of the mentoring program, Men of Ross Elementary program (MORE), on improving the reading achievement of African American males (Doctoral dissertation, Union University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(11A), 109–3917. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Rodriguez, S. (2007). The Accelerated Reader program’s relationship to student achievement on the English-language arts California standards test. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(3), 191–205. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Rodriguez-Blanco, O. (2006). The impact of the Accelerated Reader program on third grade/fourth grade bilingual students’ TAKS reading scores in a south Texas border town. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University–Kingsville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Rogers, L. S. (2000). The perceived impact of the Accelerated Reader program in an elementary school (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12A), 118–4307. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Rosa-Brown, D. (2003). The effect of Accelerated Reader on student achievement and attitude in a second grade classroom. Unpublished master’s thesis, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Rosenheck, D., Caldwell, D., Calkins, J., & Perez, D. A. (1996). Accelerated Reader impact on feelings about reading and library use: A survey of fifth grade students in Lee County, Florida, to determine how a computerized reading management program affects attitudes toward reading and the media center and frequency of library use. Unpublished survey research project, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Ross, S., & Nunnery, J. (2005). The effects of School Renaissance on student achievement in two Mississippi school districts: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy and Education Innovations. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Rudd, P., & Wade, P. (2006). Evaluation of Renaissance Learning mathematics and reading programs in UK specialist and feeder schools. Slough, Berkshire, UK: National Foundation for Education Research. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Rykken, J. M. (2005). The pros and cons of Accelerated Reader. Unpublished alternate plan paper, Minnesota State University–Mankato. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Sadusky, L., & Brem, S. (2002). The integration of Renaissance programs into an urban Title I elementary school, and its effect on school-wide improvement. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Samuels, S. J., & Wu, Y. (2004). How the amount of time spent on independent reading affects reading achievement: A response to the National Reading Panel. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Samuels, S. J., Lewis, M., Wu, Y. C., Reininger, J., & Murphy, A. (2004). Accelerated Reader vs. non-Accelerated Reader: How students using the Accelerated Reader outperformed the control condition in a tightly controlled experimental study. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it is a randomized controlled trial in which the combination of overall and differential attrition rates exceeds WWC standards for this area, and the subsequent analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Additional source:
Samuels, S. J., & Wu, Y. C. (2004). The effects of immediate feedback on reading achievement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Schmidt, R. (2008). Really reading: What does Accelerated Reader teach adults and children? Language Arts, 85(3), 202–211. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

School Renaissance Institute. (1999). Idaho statewide implementation of Reading Renaissance: Summary of first year’s results. Madison, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
School Renaissance Institute. (2000). Second-year (1999–2000) implementation of Reading Renaissance® in Idaho: Summary of second year’s results. Madison, WI: Author.

School Renaissance Institute. (1999). The librarians’ Reading Renaissance survey. Madison, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

School Renaissance Institute. (1999). The teachers’ Reading Renaissance survey. Madison, WI: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Schreiber, M. J. (2005). Factors affecting the efficacy of an Accelerated Reader program: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Widener University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(03A), 193–940. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Schroeder, K. (2003). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program on sixth grade reading comprehension levels. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–San Marcos. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Scott, L. S. (1999). The Accelerated Reader program, reading achievement, and attitudes of students with learning disabilities. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

Scott, T. L. (2003). The Accelerated Reader program: Its impact on sixth graders’ book selection and independent reading. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Alabama State University, Montgomery. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Shanahan, C. (2005). Adolescent literacy intervention programs: Chart and program review guide. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates/North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Siegert, J. (2002). Reading achievement of American Indian and white students using Accelerated Reader: Correlations with gender, word count, classroom practice, and library circulation. Unpublished master’s thesis, St. Cloud State University, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Simmons, E. W. (2001). The impact of computer technology on communication among home, school, and community regarding Reading Renaissance: An action research study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Sims, S. P. (2002). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program and sustained silent reading on reading attitudes and reading achievement of eighth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(06A), 134–2119. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Smith, E. G., & Clark, C. (2001). Evaluation of a comprehensive school reform model with Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Smith, I. (2005). Can Accelerated Reader and cooperative learning enhance the reading achievement of level 1 high school students on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test? (Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(04A), 50–1274. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Spradley, T. G. (1998). The Accelerated Reader program and ITBS normal curve equivalents for reading, mathematics, and language of sixth-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Spurgeon, J. (1996). Accelerated Reader hand in hand with C.T.B.S. test scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, Linfield College, McMinnville, OR. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Steeg, S. M. (2007). Jose reads gold star books: A study of Accelerated Reader. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Steele, C. T. (2003). The effectiveness of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading level of second-grade students as measured by the student test for assessment of reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Steigemeier, L. (1999). Language integrated technology project final evaluation report: A technology literacy challenge fund grant project in cooperation with the office of the superintendent of public instruction. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Stevens, K. F. (2006). The effectiveness of Accelerated Reader on fifth-grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Stanislaus. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent.

Stewart, R. G. (2003). Motivating gifted/advanced readers in the middle grades: An action research study. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Terry, A. (2007). Reading in the fast lane: An evaluative study on the effectiveness of Accelerated Reader in a fourth-grade literacy program. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Fresno. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

The Carmel Hill Fund. (2007). The Carmel Hill Fund Education Program: Evaluation of 2005–2006 school results. New York: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Thompson, A. H. (2007). The perceptions of teachers and students on the effectiveness of Accelerated Reader as a motivational tool. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alabama A&M University, Huntsville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Thompson, G., Madhuri, M., & Taylor, D. (2008). How the Accelerated Reader program can become counterproductive for high school students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(7), 550–560. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Topping, K. J. (1999, November). Formative assessment of reading comprehension by computer: Advantages and disadvantages of the Accelerated Reader software. Reading Online. Retrieved from www.readingonline.org. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Topping, K. J. (2006). Accelerated Reader in specialist schools. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Topping, K. J., & Fisher, A. M. (2001). Accelerated Reader: U.K. pilot, 1999–2000. Summary report. Dundee, UK: University of Dundee, Centre for Paired Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Topping, K. J., & Fisher, A. M. (2003). Computerised formative assessment of reading comprehension: Field trials in the U.K. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(3), 267–279. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Topping, K. J., & Paul, T. D. (1999). Computer-assisted assessment of practice at reading: A large scale survey using Accelerated Reader data. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 15(3), 213–231. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Topping, K. J., & Sanders, W. L. (2000). Teacher effectiveness and computer assessment of reading: Relating value-added and learning information system data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 305–337. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
Renaissance Learning. (2000). Accelerated Reader and Reading Renaissance lead to increased teacher effectiveness. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.

Topping, K. J., Samuels, J., & Paul, T. (2007). Computerized assessment of independent reading: Effects of implementation quality on achievement gain. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(2), 191–208. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Torgesen, J. K., & King, R. (2000). FCRR Technical Report #3: Improving the effectiveness of reading instruction in one elementary school: A description of the process. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Toro, A. (2001). A comparison of reading achievement in second grade students using the Accelerated Reading program and independent reading. Unpublished master’s thesis, Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, TN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Townsend, K. (2007). Accelerated Reader: Optimal conditions for reading achievement using a computer information system. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(6-A), 2327. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Trumble, J. F. (2003). Improving reading levels, using Accelerated Reader as a supplemental reading program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Chapman University, Orange, CA. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Turner, T. (1993). Improving reading comprehension achievement of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade underachievers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

VanderZee, D., Swanson, S., Rue, T., & Paul, T. (1996). Impact of the Accelerated Reader technology-based literacy program on overall academic achievement and school attendance. Madison, WI: Institute for Academic Excellence. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Vantuyl, V. (2002). The most effective use of Accelerated Reader for upper elementary students (Master’s thesis, Central Missouri State University). Masters Abstracts International, 40(06), 32–1332. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Vega, C. (1999). A research conducted to study the effect of Accelerated Reader designed to help increase reading levels in a third-grade class of at-risk students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sarasota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(11A), 49–3913. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Veidt, A. M. (2003). A correlational study of the fourth grade scores on the Ohio proficiency test and their scores on the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Muskingum College, New Concord, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Vetcher, J. (2000). South Bay Union School District’s informational report on Accelerated Reader. Imperial Beach, CA: South Bay Union School District. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional source:
School Renaissance Institute. (2000). South Bay Union School District, Imperial Beach, California: Informational report on Accelerated Reader. Madison, WI: Author.

Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, H. M. (1996). Experimental evaluation of computer assisted self-assessment of reading comprehension: Effects on reading achievement and attitude. Dundee, Scotland, UK: Dundee University, Centre for Paired Learning. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, R. M. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action research. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(3), 197–211. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Walasek, M. (2005). A study of the Accelerated Reader program on third grade students’ motivation to read. Unpublished master’s thesis, Carthage College, Kenosha, WI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.

Walberg, H. (2001). Final evaluation of the reading initiative: Report to the J. A. & Kathryn Albertson Foundation Board of Directors. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Walker, G. A. (2005). The impact of Accelerated Reader on the reading levels of eighth-grade students at Delaware’s Milford Middle School (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(03A), 86–940. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use acomparison group.

Warncke, A. M. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the Accelerated Reader program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Defiance College, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Watts, B. D. (2004). Accelerated Reader: Its motivational effects on advanced adolescent readers (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University). Masters Abstracts International, 43(02), 67–386. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Wendt, K. (2005). The effects of the Accelerated Reader program on the reading habits and reading frequencies of fourth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

White, R., & Reisner, E. (2007). Model literacy programs: Save the children: Evaluation findings from the 2005–06 school year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

White, W. Q. (2005). An investigation of the Accelerated Reader program in one small school district: Students’, teachers’, and administrators’ perceptions (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(11A), 174–3995. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Willcutt, J. (2004). Effect of modeled and oral repeated reading on English language learners’ reading performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample includes less than 50% general education students.

Williams, C. H. (2008). Effect of independent reading on fourth graders’ vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, AL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Windle, S. M. (2003). Does Accelerated Reader make Johnny want to read? An evaluation research project. Unpublished educational specialist’s thesis, Valdosta State University, GA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Wrieden, K. J. (2000). Motivating students with Accelerated Reader. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Yee, V. N. (2007). An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(04A), 108–1317. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Zombro, B. (2003). The Accelerated Reader program compared to sustained silent reading on third graders’ SOL reading scores. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.