Research

Thirty-seven studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of LiPS^®. One study (Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, & Herron, 2003) is a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC evidence standards. No studies are randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs that meet WWC evidence standards with reservations. The remaining 36 studies do not meet either WWC evidence standards or eligibility screens.

Torgesen et al. (2003) included 150 low-achieving first-grade students in five elementary schools. At two schools, students were randomly assigned to either LiPS^® (formerly Auditory Discrimination in Depth^®) or Read, Write and Type™ (RWT), a reading software program. At three additional schools, students were randomly assigned to either LiPS^®, RWT, or a regular instruction control group.⁵ The beginning reading review presents data relevant to comparisons of LiPS^® with RWT and of LiPS^® with a regular instruction control group.⁶

Extent of Evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and the total sample size across the studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations.⁷

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for LiPS^® to be small for alphabetics and comprehension. No studies that meet WWC evidence standards with or without reservations examined the effectiveness of LiPS^® in the fluency or general reading achievement domains.