WWC review of this study

Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, P. A., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621412

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    50
     Students
    , grade
    4

Reviewed: November 2015

Study sample characteristics were not reported.
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: March 2010

Alphabetics outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Word Attack subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

98

90.3

Yes

 
 
34
More Outcomes

Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC)

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

82.3

69

Yes

 
 
32

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

84.7

83.7

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Rapid Letter Naming subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

93.3

93.1

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Non-word Repetition subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

102.2

103

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT–R): Word Identification subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

79.9

80.5

No

--

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

96.4

97.9

No

--

Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

72.1

72.7

No

--
Comprehension outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Comprehension subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

91.7

86

No

 
 
21
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R): Passage Comprehension subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

90.2

92

No

--
Mathematics achievement outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Woodcock-Johnson Revised (WJ-R): Calculation subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

90.9

86.9

No

 
 
12
Reading fluency outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Accuracy subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

93.1

87.5

No

 
 
17
More Outcomes

Gray Oral Reading Test Third Edition (GORT-3): Reading Rate subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

75.6

72.1

No

 
 
17
Writing achievement outcomes—Statistically significant negative effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA): Spelling subtest

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. Embedded Phonics

Posttest

Grade 4;
50 students

76.3

80

No

-22
 
 

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 28%
    Male: 72%
  • Race
    Black
    35%
    White
    65%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Florida

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.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top