Gunn, B. K. (1996). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9706736).
Reviewed: November 2015
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).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Supplemental reading instruction |
Post |
Grade 1;
|
6.36 |
8.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Supplemental reading instruction |
Post |
Grade 1;
|
2.82 |
4.25 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study included two elementary schools in one Pacific Northwest school district.
Thirty-five first-grade students from five classrooms in two schools who were identified as having low phonological awareness skills based on performance on the Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) participated in the study. The students were organized into six groups, and these groups were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Complete Auditory Discrimination in Depth (CADD, which is now known as LiPS®, included 11 students), the basal reading program (BASAL, which included 13 students), or Modified Auditory Discrimination in Depth (MADD, which included 11 students). The MADD condition is not eligible for review, as it is a modified version of the LiPS® program. Therefore, the 11 students in the MADD condition are excluded from this review. The CADD group’s analytic sample included five male and six female students, with a mean age of 6.35 years. The BASAL (comparison) group’s analytic sample included three male and nine female students, with a mean age of 6.47 years. All students who participated in the study scored at or below the 15th percentile on the TOPA, which was used as a screening test and administered prior to randomization.
The LiPS® program is designed to teach students the skills they need to decode and encode words and to identify individual sounds and blends in words. For this study, instruction focused on five components of the CADD program: (a) setting the climate for learning, (b) identifying and classifying speech sounds, (c) tracking speech sounds, (d) spelling, and (e) reading. As a supplement to regular classroom reading instruction, CADD instruction was delivered to small groups of five to six students. Instruction was provided for 30 minutes every day for 8 weeks (40 sessions total). During this period, all consonant pairs specified in CADD guidelines were introduced, but there was insufficient time to introduce consonant groups and some vowel sounds.
Students in the comparison (BASAL) group received supplemental reading instruction that incorporated phonological awareness activities from the basal reader adopted for use in the regular classroom. The classroom reading basal at School A was the Scribner Reading Series, Join the Circle (Scribner, 1997); the classroom reading basal at School B was the Open Court Series, Blue Pillow Sky (Open Court, 1989). The supplemental instruction was provided to students in a small room near the first-grade classroom for approximately 30 minutes each day for 40 days (8 weeks).
Two outcomes in the alphabetics domain met review requirements. These outcomes were the WRMT-R Word Identification subtest and the Word Attack subtest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Supplemental findings are presented in Appendix D on WRMT-R results for a 4-week delayed posttest and an 8-week delayed posttest. The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness. Outcomes in two domains (alphabetics and reading fluency) did not meet review requirements. The Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LACT) in the alphabetics domain was overaligned with the intervention. The Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Test in the reading fluency domain was developed by the study authors. No reliability information was provided for this outcome, so it did not meet review requirements because the reliability of the test could not be established.
The two teachers providing instruction for the CADD, MADD, and BASAL programs each received 18 hours of pre-service training on the published formats and guidelines for each program. The two teachers also met with the investigator for 2 hours each week for 8 weeks for additional pre-service training. Daily lesson plans developed by the investigator were also provided to the two teachers.
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