Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities: Immediate and Long-Term Outcomes from Two Instructional Approaches.
Torgesen, Joseph K.; Alexander, Ann W.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Voeller, Kytja K. S.; Conway, Tim (2001). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v34 n1 p33-58,78. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621412
-
examining50Students, grade4
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Intervention Report - Beginning Reading
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2015
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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 Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS).
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Intervention Report - Students with a Specific Learning Disability
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
98.00 |
90.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC) |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
82.30 |
69.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
84.70 |
83.70 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Rapid Letter Naming subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
93.30 |
93.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Non-word Repetition subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
102.20 |
103.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
79.90 |
80.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
96.40 |
97.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
72.10 |
72.70 |
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 |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
91.70 |
86.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
90.20 |
92.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Calculation subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
90.90 |
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): Reading Accuracy subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
93.10 |
87.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
75.60 |
72.10 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA): Spelling subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Embedded Phonics |
Posttest |
Grade 4;
|
76.30 |
80.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 28%
Male: 72% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
-
Race Black 35% White 65%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted with students with learning disabilities from three public elementary schools in Florida. Students were between eight and ten years of age and enrolled in the 4th grade.
Study sample
The sample for this study included a total of 60 students between eight and ten years of age. All participants had been identified by school staff as having learning disabilities based on a discrepancy of at least one standard deviation between their scores on a standardized test of reading and their full-scale score on an intelligence test. Each year for three years, the researchers worked with staff from the three elementary schools to select a sample of students with learning disabilities (20 students per year) who met the following criteria: (1) they were identified by their teachers as having serious difficulty in acquiring word-level reading skills, (2) their average standard score on two measures of word-level reading was at least 1.5 standard deviations below average, (3) their estimated verbal intelligence was above 75, and (4) they performed below minimum required levels for their grade on a measure of phonological awareness. The 60 children eligible for the study were randomly assigned to one of two groups (30 per group): LiPS® or Embedded Phonics (an instructional program developed by the authors). The interventions were provided to students in two eight-week phases: an intensive phase and an application/generalization phase. Pretest data were collected two to three weeks prior to the start of the interventions, posttest data were collected two to three weeks after completion of the eight-week intensive intervention period, and follow-up data were collected one year and two years following the posttest. Ten children were not available for second year follow-up data collection, leaving 50 students in the analysis sample—26 students that received LiPS® and 24 students that received Embedded Phonics. Children in the study had the following characteristics: all were 4th graders, 72% were male, 65% were Caucasian and 35% were African-American, and the average full-scale IQ for students in the study was about 96. Additional findings reflecting students’ outcomes at the first and second year follow-ups can be found in Appendices A4.1–4.10.
Intervention Group
This study involved a comparison of the effectiveness of two interventions: (1) LiPS® and (2) Embedded Phonics. Both of the interventions provided explicit instruction in word-level reading skills; they differed in method of teaching and in relative amount of time spent on instructional activities. LiPS® was provided to students in two phases. In the first phase of the intervention, intensive instruction was delivered on a 1:1 basis for two 50-minute sessions, five days a week, for eight weeks, until a total of 67.5 hours of instruction had been provided. During this time of intensive instruction, LiPS® substituted for time the students would normally have spent in their learning disability resource room. In the second, less intensive phase of LiPS®, students received one 50-minute lesson per week for eight additional weeks in their learning disability resource room, applying skills they had learned during the intensive phase to regular classroom materials. LiPS® placed primary emphasis on building skills in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding with individual words. LiPS® has three goals: (1) to provide a basis for accurate discriminations among phonemes by teaching the distinctive kinesthetic, auditory, and visual (mouth form pictures) features associated with all the common phonemes of the English language; kinesthetic and visual features are taught to help make the phoneme more concrete, and to allow children to both hear and feel phonemic contrasts and identities in spoken patterns; (2) to teach children to use their knowledge of the distinctive features of phonemes to monitor and represent sequences of sounds in spoken syllables; and (3) to use problem-solving activities to teach children selfmonitoring skills.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group participated in a competing intervention, developed by the study authors, called Embedded Phonics. This intervention was delivered for the same amount of time as LiPS® and also taught phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding. However, the Embedded Phonics instruction emphasized application through reading meaningful text and recognizing, practicing, and spelling high-frequency sight words.
Outcome descriptions
The authors assessed students with a battery of tests at the pretest, posttest, one-year follow-up, and two-year follow-up time points. In the domain of alphabetics, phonological awareness was measured by administration of the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test and the Elision subtest, the Non-word Repetition subtest, and the Rapid Letter Naming subtest from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP); word attack was measured by administration of the Word Attack subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT–R) and the Phonemic Decoding and Sight Word Efficiency subtests of the Test of the Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); and letter-word identification was measured by administration of the Word Identification subtest of the WRMT–R. The domain of reading fluency was measured by administration of the Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate subtests of the Gray Oral Reading Test–III (GORT–III). The domain of reading comprehension was measured by administration of the Passage Comprehension subtest of the WRMT–R and the Reading Comprehension subtest of the GORT–III. The domain of writing was measured by administration of the Spelling subtest of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. The domain of math was measured by administration of the Calculation subtest from the WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Battery–Revised (WJ–R). Other outcomes were reported in the study but were not included in this report because they were outside the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1–2.5.
Support for implementation
The teachers who administered each program all had at least one year’s experience teaching children with reading disabilities using that method or one very similar to it. The teachers who taught LiPS® were all drawn from those working at a clinic where the program had been used for the previous five years.
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).