Torgesen, Joseph K.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Herron, Jeannine; Lindamood, Patricia (2010). Annals of Dyslexia, v60 n1 p40-56 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891057
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developmental spelling test (Tangel & Blachman 1992) |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.00 |
23.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Wide Range Achievement Test - Revised (WRAT-R): Spelling Subtest |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
36.20 |
34.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
108.30 |
99.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
107.00 |
100.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.60 |
10.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.50 |
21.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Sight Word Efficiency |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
42.70 |
38.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Identification |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
103.80 |
99.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised: Word Attack |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
104.40 |
99.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Phonemic Decoding Efficiency |
Read, Write, and Type (RWT) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
22.60 |
20.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in Tallahassee, Florida.
Teachers implemented the computer-based Read, Write, and Type program for groups of 3 students outside normal classroom time. Teachers introduced students to graphemes and phonemes and to proper typing techniques. Students completed computer activities on phonetic spelling and writing, and then practiced typing words with the phonemes the teacher had introduced. Students also read their own writing and the writing of other students. The intervention involved 50-minute sessions 4 times a week for a full school year.
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Reviewed: February 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP): Segmenting Words Subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.60 |
11.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
CTOPP: Phoneme Elision subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.72 |
12.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.60 |
18.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP): Segmenting Words Subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
16.10 |
14.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
CTOPP: Phoneme Elision subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
17.40 |
15.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
22.70 |
21.60 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in Tallahassee, Florida.
Teachers led groups of 3 students through the computer-based Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS®). Sessions occurred either outside reading instructional time or during time dedicated to small-group work in the typical reading classroom. Students learned how to articulate phonemes, used manipulatives to represent phonemes in words, used software that mimicked teachers’ instructional activities and provided feedback, and read text both on and off the computer. The intervention involved 50-minute sessions 4 times a week for a full school year.
Teachers taught their regular lessons during small-group time in their reading classes, and students had access to typical additional support from resource teachers.
Reviewed: June 2016
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.
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 Attack subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
113.70 |
99.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Segmenting Words subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.60 |
11.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
16.80 |
10.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R): Word Identification subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
110.60 |
100.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Phoneme Elision subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
15.50 |
12.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Developmental Spelling Analysis |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
25.10 |
23.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Sight Word Efficiency subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
26.90 |
21.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Blending Words subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
20.60 |
18.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Rapid Letter Naming subtest |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
1.20 |
1.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised (WRMT-R) |
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) vs. business as usual |
posttest |
Grade 1;
|
102.20 |
95.40 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 33% |
The study included students from three elementary schools.
First-grade students were identified as potentially at risk of having difficulty reading using a two-stage process. First, a pool of potential candidates was identified based on low scores (bottom 35%) on a test of letter-sound knowledge. Second, study authors computed a probability of reading difficulty for each student, using logistic regression and based on a combined score from three tests that measured phoneme elision, serial naming of numbers, and vocabulary. Students with the highest probabilities of reading difficulty were eligible for inclusion in the study. In total, 112 students potentially at risk of reading difficulty were recruited to participate in the study over 2 consecutive school years. Across these 2 years, 36 students were randomly assigned to the LiPS® intervention group, 36 students were randomly assigned to another intervention (RWT), and 40 students were randomly assigned to the comparison group. The final study sample, after attrition, included 35 students in the LiPS® group, 34 students in the RWT group, and 39 students in the comparison group. The RWT condition does not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness, as the comparison group’s use of a basal reader provided a more appropriate counterfactual to test the effectiveness of LiPS®; however, LiPS® vs. RWT contrasts are presented as supplemental findings in Appendix D. These supplemental findings in the comprehension, alphabetics, and reading fluency domains contrast an oral language approach used in the LiPS® intervention with an approach focused more heavily on spelling and writing in RWT. The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness. About 56% of the total sample were male, 33% were minority (mostly African American), and about 35% received free or reduced-price lunch. The average age at the beginning of instruction was 6.5 years.
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, as a supplement to regular classroom reading instruction, students were instructed in groups of three, and received four 50-minute sessions per week throughout the school year (i.e., from October through May). On average, students received 84.5 hours of LiPS® instruction.
Students in the comparison group did not receive any supplemental reading instruction. In two of the schools, the standard reading instruction was Open Court’s Collections for Young Scholars. The third school did not have a standard reading curriculum, but instead allowed teachers to choose their materials for reading instruction.
Assessments were administered immediately following the delivery of the interventions in May of a given school year. Outcomes in the alphabetics domain were measured using the WRMT-R Word Attack and Word Identification subtests; the TOWRE Word Efficiency and Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtests; the CTOPP Blending Words, Segmenting Words, Phoneme Elision, and Rapid Letter Naming subtests; and a developmental spelling analysis (Tangel & Blachman, 1992). Outcomes in the comprehension domain were measured using the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest. The CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming subtest was excluded from this review, since it was out of scope of the Beginning Reading Protocol. Outcomes were also measured 1 year following the delivery of the intervention. Reading fluency was measured using the Gray Oral Reading Test–Third Edition (GORT-3) Text Reading Rate subtest. Alphabetics was measured using the WRMT-R, CTOPP, and the Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised (WRAT-R) Spelling subtest. Comprehension was measured using the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest and the GORT-3 Comprehension subtest. These 1-year follow-up assessments are presented as supplemental findings in Appendix D. The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Teachers received 18 hours of pre-service training in LiPS® at the beginning of each year. Biweekly 3-hour staff meetings were held with teachers to discuss instructional or behavioral issues in their classrooms. Supervisors with special expertise in the LiPS® program attended roughly half of these staff meetings.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Torgesen, Joseph K.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Herron, Jeannine. (2018). 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 Technical Report #2. Florida Center for Reading Research.
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
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide