Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119–134. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ634979
Reviewed: February 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP): Phonemic Segmenting Subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
103.38 |
88.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP): Phonemic Blending Subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
101.78 |
95.13 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (Spell Read PAT) vs. Business as usual |
8 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
98.34 |
91.47 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study takes place at an elementary school in Newfoundland, Canada. The student population is considered to have low socioeconomic status, and the area has low levels of adult literacy. The intervention was implemented in groups of 3 to 5 students.
Students in the study are considered to have reading difficulties, but only 30 out of the 116 students (in grades 1-6) were classified as learning disabled by the school, and all attended regular classes.
The Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) program as implemented in this study consists of eights weeks of daily 50-minute lessons. The entire program consists of 140 lessons, but students may move at a different pace. Due to time constraints, most students in this study completed only the first of three phases of the program. Each lesson includes three activities: (1) Students participate in phonemic activities that involve using "sound cards" to blend and segment words into phonemes (30 minutes). (2) Students take turns reading out loud, stopping to discuss the story being read (15 minutes). (3) Students wrote about what they read (5-6 minutes). - Students in the intervention group were pulled out of their regular reading classroom to participate in the program. - There is no home component. - Three teachers and one supervisor implemented the intervention. These four interventionists were not the children's regular classroom teachers. - A list of materials is not provided, but the intervention does use "sound cards" and books. - The intervention is not scripted. - The program may progress at different rates depending on the progress of the students in each group. However, the study does not indicate whether a formal assessment is used to adjust the pace of the program for each group.
Students in the comparison condition participated in a regular language arts program, which consisted of 90 minutes of reading instruction each day in grades 1-3, primarily literature-based. The average class size was 15 students.
The teachers participated in a six day training program administered by Spell Read personnel. The supervisor who implemented the intervention also monitored the teachers throughout the intervention.
Reviewed: September 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery: Work Attack |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
98.10 |
84.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
105.00 |
84.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
105.60 |
90.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
86.30 |
80.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery: Letter word identification |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
93.90 |
90.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Schonell Spelling test |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
43.10 |
47.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
91.20 |
81.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
86.50 |
92.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Comprehension subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
94.40 |
91.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB): Comprehension subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
104.20 |
97.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
81.80 |
81.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest |
Spell Read Phonological Auditory Training (P.A.T.) vs. Business as usual |
Grade: 5, 6;
|
96.50 |
94.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
A public elementary school in a disadvantaged community in Newfoundland, Canada.
The 33 students in the sample discussed in this SRG are in fifth and sixth grades in a public elementary school in Newfoundland, Canada. The study was conducted in English. Thirty percent of the students in the full sample are designated as learning disabled, and I assume that this proportion is equivalent in the grades 5 and 6 subgroup. The overall school population contains a high proportion of students from socially and economically disadvantaged families with low adult literacy. Reading scores for the school were below the average for the district and nationwide.
Students in the treatment group left the classroom during regular classroom language arts period to receive group instruction. Instruction group size ranged from 3-5 students from the same grade level. Sessions were 50 minutes daily for total of 35 hours. Each 50 minute session involved 30 minutes of phonemic activities, 15 minutes of share reading, and 5-6 minutes of free writing. Share reading means taking turns reading out loud and stopping and discussing what was just read for comprehension reinforcement.
Sixty minutes per day of language instruction period was devoted to reading with another 15 minutes used for silent reading or buddy reading with a lower grade. Reading instruction relied on a combination of basal reading and study of novels. The average classroom size was 15 students.
Three teachers and one supervisor delivered the group instruction for the intervention group. The supervisor had no college education, but had two years experience instructing using the curriculum. One of the three teachers had a teaching certificate. Neither of the non-certified teachers had prior teaching experience and the other had two years of college. Each teacher was screened to ensure acceptable phonological skills and then participated in the Spell Read teacher training program, which involved an intensive six-day program delivered by Spell Read personnel.
Reviewed: June 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Reviewed: January 2013
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for SpellRead.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
99.70 |
84.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
102.30 |
84.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
104.60 |
90.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
86.80 |
80.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
93.90 |
90.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
84.70 |
81.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Schonell Spelling test |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
50.30 |
47.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
91.60 |
92.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
100.70 |
91.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
100.50 |
97.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
89.80 |
81.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 5-6;
|
98.80 |
94.70 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 100% |
The study took place in an elementary school in Newfoundland, Canada.
The study included 116 students from grades 1–6 with below-average phonetic decoding and word-level reading skills (as measured by the Word Attack and Word Identification subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised [WRMT-R]). This WWC report focuses on 33 fifth- and sixth-grade students. Students were matched on phonemic decoding and word-level skills at each grade level, with one of each pair randomly assigned to SpellRead™, and the other assigned to the comparison condition. Most of the students in the sample were from low-income families, and all were White.
SpellRead™ was implemented in small groups of three to five students outside of the regular classroom. The comparison group remained in class during this period receiving the regular reading program. The students received 31–35 hours of the program over eight weeks. Each lesson consisted of 30 minutes of phonemic activities, 15 minutes of shared reading, and 5–6 minutes of free reading. The phonemic activities included unscripted lessons with sound cards such as using single sounds (shown on two sound cards /sh/ and /oo/) to form the whole syllable (shoo). New phonemic and phonetic skills were practiced during shared reading, followed by a free writing time to write about what they read.
Students in the comparison group participated in the school’s regular literacy-based reading program. The regular classroom teachers did not have training in phonetics. After the posttest assessment, the comparison group was given the SpellRead™ program, while the intervention group was given no further SpellRead™ instruction.
The primary outcomes in the alphabetics domain were the Word Identification and Word Attack subtests of the WRMT-R; the Phonemic Decoding Efficiency and Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); the Elision, Blending Words, and Segmenting Words subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP); and the Schonell Spelling test. The primary outcomes in the reading fluency domain were the Word Accuracy and Rate subtests of the Gray Oral Reading Test, Third Edition (GORT-3). The primary outcomes in the comprehension domain were the Passage Comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB) and the Comprehension subtest of the GORT-3. The study reported student outcomes after two months (eight weeks) of program implementation. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. The study also used the Spelling test from the SpellRead™ test battery (pseudo-spelling), but this measure overaligned with the intervention and did not meet inclusion criteria as an outcome for the Adolescent Literacy review.
Three teachers and one teacher supervisor implemented the SpellRead™ program. The supervisor had previously taught the program for two years, and one of the three teachers had a teaching certificate. All instructors were screened to ensure that they had strong phonological skills. The four instructors participated in an intensive six-day training program provided by experienced SpellRead™ staff.
Reviewed: July 2007
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for SpellRead.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
98.50 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
98.50 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
101.40 |
88.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
101.40 |
88.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
90.70 |
82.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
90.70 |
82.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
102.80 |
95.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
102.80 |
95.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
98.90 |
95.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
98.90 |
95.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
93.90 |
91.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
93.90 |
91.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
88.00 |
86.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
88.00 |
86.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
97.50 |
82.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
97.50 |
82.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
102.50 |
91.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB): Comprehension subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 1-2;
|
102.50 |
91.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
92.50 |
87.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
92.50 |
87.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
94.50 |
87.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest |
SpellRead vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 2;
|
94.50 |
87.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 100% |
One elementary school in Newfoundland, Canada.
The study included 116 students from grades 1–6 with below-average phonetic decoding and word-level reading skills (as measured by the word attack and word identification subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised [WRMT–R]). This WWC report focuses on 47 first-grade and second-grade students. Students were matched on phonemic decoding and word-level skills at each grade level with one of each pair randomly assigned to SpellRead™ and the other assigned to the comparison condition. Most of the students in the sample were from low-income families and all were Caucasian.
SpellRead™ was implemented in small groups of three to five students during language arts time outside the regular classroom. The students received 31–35 hours of the program over eight weeks. Each lesson consisted of 30 minutes of phonemic activities, 15 minutes of share reading, and five to six minutes of free reading. The phonemic activities used unscripted lessons with sound cards. New phonemic and phonetic skills were practiced during share reading, followed by free writing where students wrote down what was read.
The comparison group children participated in the school’s regular literacy-based reading program. The regular classroom teachers did not have training in phonetics. After the first posttest assessment, the comparison group was given the SpellRead™ program while the intervention group was given no further SpellRead™ instruction.
The primary outcomes in the alphabetics domain were the word identification and word attack subtests of the WRMT–R, the phonemic decoding efficiency subtest of the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), and elision, blending words, and segmenting words subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). The primary outcomes in the fluency domain were the sight words efficiency subtest of the TOWRE and the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-3) word accuracy subtest. The main outcomes in the comprehension domain were the passage comprehension subtest of the Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB) and the comprehension subtest of the GORT-3. (See Appendices A2.1–2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Three teachers and one supervisor implemented the SpellRead™ program. The supervisor had previously taught the program for two years and one of the three teachers was certified. All instructors had been screened to insure that they had strong phonological skills. The four instructors participated in an intensive six-day training program provided by experienced SpellRead™ staff.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide