WWC review of this study

Summary of outcomes from first grade study with Read, Write, and Type and Auditory Discrimination in Depth instruction and software with at-risk children (FCRR Tech.

Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., & Herron, J. (2003). Rep. No. 2). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved from: http://www.fcrr.org

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    104
     Students

Reviewed: November 2015

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

Reviewed: May 2007

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

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

15.4

11.7

Yes

 
 
29
More Outcomes

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

108.3

99.5

Yes

 
 
24

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

107

100.1

No

 
 
18

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

20.1

18.2

No

 
 
15

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

13.8

12.5

No

 
 
11

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

18.9

18.8

No

--

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

15.3

16.2

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Identification subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

105.1

107.1

No

--

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

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

13.5

14.3

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Word Attack subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

106.3

109.7

No

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

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

100.2

95.4

No

 
 
15
More Outcomes

Estimated Verbal IQ

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

95.51

95.51

No

--

Estimated Verbal IQ

Read, Write & Type! vs. Business as usual

Posttest

Grade 1;
77 students

95.9

95.9

No

--

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT): Passage Comprehension subtest

Read, Write & Type! vs. Auditory Discrimination in Depth Group

Posttest

Grade 1;
104 students

99.3

99.9

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 35% Free or reduced price lunch
  • Race
    Black
    34%

Setting

The study took place in five elementary schools (location unknown).

Study sample

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.

Intervention Group

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.

Comparison Group

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.

 

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