Fast ForWord is "a computer-based reading program intended to help students develop and strengthen the cognitive skills necessary for successful reading and learning" by Scientific Learning Corporation. The research literature on Fast ForWord was reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). WWC found 21 research studies that meet their rigorous standards , the most of any reading intervention evaluated. Positive effectiveness ratings and improvement indices were found for alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and English language development. In fact, Fast ForWord had the largest improvement index of interventions evaluated in the English language development category, describing the learning done by English Language Learners. However, the quality of evidence included in these reviews has come under criticism, as it included reports that had not undergone peer review and that were produced by the company marketing the intervention.

The Fast ForWord products evolved from the work of a number of scientists, including Michael Merzenich and Bill Jenkins at the University of California, San Francisco, and Paula Tallal and Steven Miller at Rutgers University. This team started the company in 1996 based on a theory that some children who have language and literacy learning difficulties may have problems rapidly processing sounds, a following theory that cognitive training can improve auditory processing, and the final following theory that this training will generalize to improve learning skills beyond those in the training tasks. However, a systematic review that focused only on high quality randomised controlled trials did not find any positive benefit of the intervention., and a more general review of "Brain Training" programs noted that: "In summary, the evidence cited by Scientific Learning Corporation provides little compelling evidence for the effectiveness of Fast ForWord as a tool to improve language processing or other aspects of cognition. Studies showing benefits typically included interventions that lacked any control group, and those with a control comparison group generally showed little evidence for differential improvements. The only randomized controlled trial provided no evidence for differential improvements, even on measures tapping similar aspects of auditory language processing."