Reading outcomes
Does it work? Here is how we prove it, and what the data says.
Most reading programs ask you to trust a testimonial. We measure every child the way a reading specialist would, publish the methodology before we look at the results, and report the numbers honestly, sample size, gains, effect size, and limitations included.
Loading the latest results…
What we measure
Validated, specialist-trusted measures, not homemade quizzes, taken at baseline (before the first session) and again over time.
Oral reading fluencyWords correct per minute on level-matched connected text, scored against the Hasbrouck & Tindal (2017) national norms. The primary outcome.
AccuracyPercent of words read correctly, with a 96% mastery gate, the line between practicing a skill and guessing.
Decoding (nonsense-word fluency)Reading pseudo-words the child has never seen. This is the measure that proves a child is decoding, not memorizing, and it is what specialists trust most for dyslexia. (Rolling out.)
Dosage & retentionNights read and sessions completed. Evidence is only interpretable if we know how much the child actually used it, so we report it alongside every result.
How we analyze it
- Single-group pre/post, running continuously. Every child is their own baseline. Largest sample, honest about its limits.
- Effect size (Cohen's d) with 95% confidence intervals, so a reviewer can judge the strength and the uncertainty, not just a headline number.
- Growth versus expected. We check whether children are closing the gap to grade-level norms, not merely moving, because ordinary maturation moves everyone a little.
- Dosage and attrition reported openly, results stratified by how much the child actually used the program. No cherry-picking.
- Pre-registered. The design and the primary outcome are written down before we look at results, so the goalposts cannot move. Read the full measurement protocol and evidence base.
Our honesty rule. Until the sample is large enough to defend, this page shows the method and the amount of data collected, not a gain number we could not stand behind. When the numbers publish, every limitation publishes with them. We would rather earn the claim than borrow it.
Independent review
As the dataset grows we will pursue independent administration through school and university partners, submit qualifying studies to Evidence for ESSA (a free, rigorous review), and seek a structured-literacy alignment review. A result carries more weight when the name attached to it is not ours.
See where your child stands, free →