WWC review of this study

Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40–56. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891057

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    74
     Students
    , grade
    1
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: June 2016

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

Reviewed: November 2015

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. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

113.7

99.5

Yes

 
 
35
More Outcomes

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

15.6

11.7

Yes

 
 
32

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

16.8

10.6

Yes

 
 
29

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

110.6

100.6

Yes

 
 
26

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

15.5

12.5

Yes

 
 
25

Developmental Spelling Analysis

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

25.1

23.4

Yes

 
 
22

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

26.9

21

Yes

 
 
20

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

20.6

18.2

Yes

 
 
18

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

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

1.2

1.2

No

--
Comprehension 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)

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) vs. business as usual

posttest

Grade 1;
74 students

102.2

95.4

Yes

 
 
21

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 35% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Male: 56%
  • Race
    Not specified
    33%

Setting

The study included students from three elementary schools.

Study sample

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.

Intervention Group

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.

Comparison Group

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.

Outcome descriptions

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.

Support for implementation

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

 

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