In this article I critique six quantitative studies of Reading Recovery and five reviews of Reading Recovery research published in Tier 1 research journals--journals accepted as having high levels of "expert scrutiny" through peer review. I also critique several quantitative research studies of Reading Recovery published in Tier 2 research journals. These journals are less recognized as outlets for research, or may be perceived of having possible, rather than actual, bias toward more positive views of Reading Recovery. Critique of studies published in Tier 1 research journals revealed many design flaws conducted by researchers aligned with and critical of Reading Recovery, although researchers aligned with Reading Recovery conducted studies with fewer design flaws. The actual findings of five of the six quantitative studies in Tier 1 research journals found positive results for Reading Recovery. Although three studies were critical of Reading Recovery, the results of these studies showed, in two cases, positive outcomes. Several studies including reviews of Reading Recovery reported negative results and these studies were most flawed in design, methodology, statistical analysis, and statement of actual findings. When analyses were examined in detail, the results for Reading Recovery were more positive than reported by the researchers. Research in Tier 2 research journals found positive results for Reading Recovery, and several studies demonstrated longitudinal effects primarily for discontinued students. Overall, Reading Recovery's effect size compares favorably to other large-scale comprehensive school reform models. The research on Reading Recovery provides several insights for early literacy researchers: researchers studying interventions intended to serve the lowest-performing children face many design challenges, educators who read intervention studies must be critical consumers even when studies are published in Tier 1 research journals, and early literacy professionals must be mindful of determining whether children have "deficits" based merely on normal-developing children's performance. I conclude that the positive research outcomes of multiple studies of Reading Recovery, in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 research journals, is a critical finding in early literacy research which must not be undermined by the few negative results found in studies with critical flaws. (Contains 2 tables and 2 figures.)