Headsprout Early Reading for Specific Literacy Difficulty: A Comparison Study
Computer-run Headsprout Early Reading lifts word and sentence reading faster than SENCO-led lessons for 6- to 9-year-olds with literacy delays.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Storey et al. (2020) compared two reading programs in Northern Irish schools.
Kids aged 6-9 with literacy delays used the computer game Headsprout Early Reading four times a week.
The control group got the usual phonics and guided reading lessons from the school SENCO.
After seven months the team checked word recognition, sentence reading, and sight words.
What they found
The Headsprout group scored much higher on every reading skill.
Computer lessons beat the specialist-led lessons by a clear margin.
How this fits with other research
Storey et al. (2017) ran an earlier Headsprout trial with children who had been in care. They also saw reading gains, but the 2020 study shows the same program can top standard school help.
Gillespie et al. (2023) moved Headsprout into homes with parent coaches. Kids finished more lessons, yet reading gains were only small. The difference: school staff kept pace tight, while home use relied on parent hustle.
Nally et al. (2021) and Pettingell et al. (2022) stretched Headsprout to autistic children. Both found positive results, proving the program travels beyond its first population.
Bailey et al. (2022) tested a different online reading game, ABRACADABRA, plus shared book reading. They saw no reading improvement, reminding us that not all digital tools work — the program design matters.
Why it matters
If you support early readers who lag behind, Headsprout is a ready-to-use option that beats typical school phonics. Push for access to the software and keep sessions frequent — four times a week brought the best payoff in this study. When parents ask about home use, show them Gillespie’s paper: without weekly coach calls, gains shrink. For autistic learners, pair the program with the support tiers L et al. used and you can expect progress. Start one student on Headsprout this week and track lesson scores — you should see quicker word recognition within a month.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place a slow reader on Headsprout four days this week and graph lesson mastery — expect a jump in sight-word fluency within a month.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study compared the efficacy of the Headsprout© Early Reading (HER) program with SENCO-delivered supplementary literacy instruction. Participants were primary school children (aged 6–9) in receipt of free school meals and supplementary literacy instruction. Data were collected within their school setting. The treatment group received HER intervention, while the treatment as usual (TAU) group received SENCO-delivered intervention, inclusive of guided reading, paper-based phonics training and word recognition tasks. It was hypothesized that children in the HER intervention group would significantly outperform those in the TAU group on measures of word/non-word recognition and sentence reading over a 7-month period. Thirty-two pupils with specific literacy difficulty were randomized to either HER (n = 17) or TAU (n = 15). Literacy skills were assessed using the Phonics and Early Reading Assessment pre- and post-intervention. ANOVA and t test analysis found that HER made significantly greater gains on measures of word/non-word recognition [t(30) = 7.55, p < 0.001], sentence reading [t(30) = 3.33, p < 0.05] and sight words [t(30) = 4.23, p < 0.001] than the TAU group. This study is the first to demonstrate stronger outcomes for children receiving computer-aided instruction over SENCO-delivered literacy instruction in a Northern Irish School.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s10864-019-09336-7