Torgesen, Joseph K.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Herron, Jeannine (2018). Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED587689
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).
Reviewed: May 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 Read, Write & Type!.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Segmenting subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.40 |
11.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
108.30 |
99.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
107.00 |
100.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Blending subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
20.10 |
18.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
13.80 |
12.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Blending subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
18.90 |
18.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Segmenting subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.30 |
16.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
105.10 |
107.10 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
13.50 |
14.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
106.30 |
109.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
100.20 |
95.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Estimated Verbal IQ |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
95.51 |
95.51 |
No |
-- | |
|
Estimated Verbal IQ |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
95.90 |
95.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest |
Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
99.30 |
99.90 |
No |
-- |
| Black | 34% |
The study took place in five elementary schools (location unknown).
The study included 150 low-achieving first grade students in five elementary schools. All students scored in the lowest 35% on a letter-sound knowledge measure and were considered to be most at-risk for developing reading problems. At two schools, students were randomly assigned either to Read, Write & Type!™ (RWT) (n = 16) or to Auditory Discrimination in Depth® (ADD) (n = 16). At three schools, students were randomly assigned to RWT (n = 38), ADD (n = 38), or a comparison group (n = 42) (J.K. Torgesen, personal communication, September 7, 2006). Two students attrited from each of the RWT and ADD groups, and one student attrited from the comparison group. The final analysis samples included 52 RWT and 52 ADD students located at five schools; and 36 RWT, 36 ADD, and 41 comparison students located at three schools. Approximately 34% of the sample were minority children (primarily African-American). Approximately 35% of the sample received free/reduced lunch, but students ranged in terms of their socio-economic status.
Students assigned to the RWT program received services from October through May. Working in groups of three, the students had four 50-minute sessions per week. A trained RWT teacher devoted approximately half of each session to direct instruction, leading students in warm-up activities outlined in the teacher’s manual. For the remainder of the session, students worked individually on the computer practicing the same skills, with the teacher in a support role. The teacher occasionally provided further individualized instruction if a child encountered specific difficulties. The computer program emphasizes phonological awareness, letter sound correspondence, and phonemic decoding in the context of children expressing themselves in written language.
ADD students received instruction in the same format and duration as the RWT students, but the type of activities differed. The ADD program focuses on developing phonological awareness and phonemic decoding skills through practicing word reading skills out of context, reading phonetically controlled text, and completing computer activities. The regular instruction comparison groups continued receiving the regular instruction and support typically available to them (J.K. Torgesen, personal communication, September 7, 2006). Two of the three schools with regular instruction comparison groups used Open Court’s Collections for Young Scholars as the whole-class reading curriculum.
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