Empirical Reviews of Spire Reading Program and 95% Reading Program

• Journal Listing
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC8497161

Except Child. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 Oct 7.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC8497161

NIHMSID: NIHMS1744428

Current State of the Testify: Examining the Furnishings of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Word-Level Reading Disabilities

Elizabeth A. Stevens

¹Georgia State Academy

Christy Austin

³University of Utah

Clint Moore

²Academy of Texas at Austin

Nancy Scammacca

²Academy of Texas at Austin

Alexis Northward. Boucher

²Academy of Texas at Austin

Sharon Vaughn

²University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

Over the by decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots move resulting in virtually states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at take chances for give-and-take-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings defective back up for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-assay to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do non statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; effect size [ES] = 0.22; p = .forty), although the mean ES was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, at that place were not meaning differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.fourteen; p = .59) for students with or at take a chance for WLRD. More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully empathize the furnishings of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Approximately 13% of public schoolhouse students receive special education services under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015–2016), with 34% identified with a specific learning disability (SLD; Depaoli et al., 2015). Approximately 85% of students identified with SLD have a primary disability in the surface area of reading (Depaoli et al., 2015). Reading achievement data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrate that students with disabilities persistently perform far beneath their nondisabled peers in reading, with only 32% performing at a bones level and 30% performing to a higher place a basic level (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017, 2019). The majority of students reading below grade level after the early on elementary grades require remediation in word-level decoding and reading fluency (Scammacca et al., 2013; Vaughn et al., 2010).

The International Dyslexia Association (IDA; 2002) and National Found of Child Health and Man Evolution (Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Found of Child Health and Human Development, n.d.) define dyslexia as an SLD that is neurobiological in origin and characterized by difficulties with accurate or fluent give-and-take recognition, poor spelling, and poor decoding. These word-reading deficits consequence in secondary consequences, including reduced exposure to text, poor vocabulary and groundwork knowledge development, and limited reading comprehension (Lyon et al., 2003). Over the past decade, considerable back up for screening, assessing, and providing appropriate educational services for students with dyslexia has occurred at local and state levels (National Center on Improving Literacy [NCIL], 2021). Twoscore-7 states established legislation to protect the rights of individuals with dyslexia beyond the requirements of the Individuals With Disabilities Instruction Act (Idea, 2004; U.S. Section of Education, 2019; NCIL, 2019). Students with dyslexia may receive specialized didactics as a student with SLD under ESSA (2015) or through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973). These students demonstrate give-and-take-reading and spelling difficulties, so they may be identified with SLD in basic reading, reading fluency, or written expression (Odegard et al., 2020). Because dyslexia tin can be identified as a SLD, some schools may not utilize the dyslexia characterization when identifying a pupil. All students with give-and-take-level reading disabilities (WLRD) require didactics to address their difficulties in word recognition, spelling, and decoding.

Many states require teacher preparation and implementation of Orton-Gillingham (OG) methodology (see Tabular array 1). The OG approach to reading instruction is a "direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive way to teach reading and spelling" (OG University, 2020 October fourteen) normally used for students with and at risk for reading disabilities, such equally dyslexia (Ring et al., 2017). The OG University farther defines each descriptor of the OG approach, stating OG is direct and explicit by "employing lesson formats which ensure that students understand what is to be learned, why it is to be learned, and how information technology is to exist learned"; structured and sequential by "presenting information in a logical social club which facilitates educatee learning and progress, moving from unproblematic, well-learned material to that which is more and more complex as mastery is achieved"; diagnostic in that "the teacher continuously monitors the verbal, nonverbal, and written responses of the student to identify and analyze both the student'southward problems and progress" and prescriptive in that lessons "contain instructional elements that focus on a student's difficulties and build upon a student'southward progress from the previous lessons"; and finally, multi-sensory past "using all learning pathways: seeing, hearing, feeling, and sensation of movement" (OG Academy, 2020 October 14, "What Is the Orton-Gillingham Approach?" section).

Table ane.

State Legislation Mandating the Employ of Orton-Gillingham (O-Grand).

State	Year	Legislation	Description of legislation
Arkansas	2019	Senate Bill 153	Mandated the DOE to create an approved list of materials, resource, and curriculum programs supported by the science of reading and based on instruction that is explicit, systematic, cumulative, and diagnostic, including dyslexia programs that are evidence based and grounded in the OG methodology
Minnesota	2019	Senate File Number 733	Permitted a district to use staff evolution funds for teachers to take courses from accredited providers, including providers accredited past the International Multisensory Structured Linguistic communication Education Council and the Academy of OG Practitioners and Educators
Mississippi	2019	House Bill 1046; Senate Pecker 2029; Firm Bell 496	Defined dyslexia therapy every bit "a programme delivered by a licensed dyslexia therapist that is scientific, research-based, OG based, and offered in a small-group setting"; divers a dyslexia therapist as "a professional who has completed grooming in a department approved OG based dyslexia therapy training programme"; required that each district employ a dyslexia coordinator trained in OG based dyslexia therapy
Missouri		House Bill 2379	Required the use of testify-based reading education, with consideration of the National Reading Panel report and OG methodology principles; mandated that a chore forcefulness be created including members with training and feel in early literacy development and effective research-based intervention techniques, including OG remediation programs
North Dakota		Firm Bill 1461	Required that district dyslexia specialists be trained in OG
Rhode Island	2019	Business firm Neb 5426; Firm Nib 7968	Mandated (a) at-risk students to immediately receive intervention using an OG intervention provided by an individual who possesses a Level 1 certification in OG, (b) all teachers to receive professional person development provided by the OG Practitioners and Educator, (c) districts to develop and publish reading back up resource guides utilizing advice of the University of OG Practitioners and Educators, (d) the General Assembly to provide $50,000 annually for teacher training in the OG Classroom Educator Programme, (e) a position at the DOE to include a reading specialist certified in OG, and (f) country universities to require preservice teachers to consummate OG classroom educator programs
Wisconsin	2019	Assembly Bill l; Assembly Bill 595; Senate Pecker 555	Mandated that the land superintendent employ a dyslexia specialist certified by the Academy of OG Practitioners and Educators; provided grants to teachers who earn dyslexia-related certifications from the University of OG Practitioners and Educators

The OG Institute for Multi-Sensory Teaching (2020a Oct 11, "What Orton-Gillingham Is All Almost" section) further explains multi-sensory instruction every bit involving the simultaneous utilise of "sight, hearing, touch, and movement to aid students connect and larn the concepts" and identifies this as the "about effective strategy for children with difficulties in learning to read" (Institute for Multi-Sensory Education, 2020b Oct 12, "Components of Multi-Sensory Teaching" section). Examples of visual activities include seeing words and graphemes via charts, flashcards, lists, visual cues, and pictures; examples of auditory activities include hearing sounds and directions aloud, rhymes, songs, and mnemonics; examples of kinesthetic and tactile activities include fine motor (e.g., finger borer, apply of hands to manipulate objects, writing graphemes in sand, finger tracing) and whole-body movements (e.g., arm tapping, moving in society to focus and larn; Institute for Multi-Sensory Education, 2020b October 12). About early reading programs emphasize the visual (discrimination betwixt letters, seeing a word) and auditory (naming sounds, reading words aloud) senses, and some include the kinesthetic or tactile sense (handwriting exercise, spelling words). OG intervention is described as unlike from others in the simultaneous use of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic or tactile experiences. An case of all 3 senses existence simultaneously employed could involve simultaneously seeing the letters sh on a audio card (visual), hearing the sound/sh/made past the messages sh, (auditory), and tracing the letters sh on a textured mat (kinesthetic or tactile). When the OG approach was first introduced in the early 1900s, it was unique for (a) its emphasis on direct, explicit, structured, and sequential teaching individually introducing each phonogram and the rules for blending phonograms into syllables and (b) utilizing visual, auditory, and kinesthetic teaching techniques reinforcing one another (Band et al., 2017). More recently, not-OG programs have adopted many of the descriptors or characteristics of the OG arroyo (direct, explicit, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive word-reading pedagogy), and therefore OG and non-OG programs have overlapping characteristics. Nonetheless, OG remains widely used with students with WLRD, in part, due to dyslexia legislation (Uhry & Clark, 2005; WWC, 2010).

The professional standards of the Council for Infrequent Children (2015) and U.Due south. federal regulations of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015–2016) reauthorized past the Elementary and Secondary Education Act mandate the apply of show-based practices and interventions to the greatest extent possible. However, the efficacy of OG instruction remains unclear based on results of prior systematic reviews. For example, Ritchey and Goeke (2006) published a systematic review of OG interventions implemented with uncomplicated, boyish, and college students between 1980 and 2005. Findings demonstrated limited testify to support the utilize of OG education. The authors noted the limited number of studies (N = 12) and the poor methodological rigor of those studies, calling for additional research investigating OG interventions; others in the field have also noted the lack of rigorous research examining OG interventions (Lim & Oei, 2015; Band et al., 2017). Since the Ritchey and Goeke (2006) review, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) likewise reviewed branded OG programs (i.e., published, commercially bachelor OG programs; WWC, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2010h, 2010i, 2012, 2013) and unbranded OG interventions (i.e., unpublished curricula based on the principles of a sequential, multisensory OG approach to teaching reading; WWC, 2010g), finding picayune testify supporting the effectiveness of the OG methodology.

Rationale and Purpose

Despite the express evidence supporting its efficacy, OG has go a popular, widely adopted and used arroyo to providing reading instruction to students with or at hazard for WLRD (Lim & Oei, 2015; Band et al., 2017). Laws requiring the apply of evidence-based practices for addressing WLRD may also mandate the use of OG—seemingly bold that OG approaches are associated with statistically significant furnishings for target students. Considering that the WWC reviews occurred 10 years ago and the Ritchey and Goeke (2006) review occurred nearly 15 years ago, we aimed to update and extend Ritchey and Goeke's review to inform the field on the current state of the prove regarding this popular and widely utilized instructional arroyo. We addressed the following research question: What are the effects of OG interventions for students identified with or at risk for WLRD in Grades Thousand through 12? Due to the lack of methodological rigor noted for studies included in these prior reviews, nosotros besides examined whether the furnishings are chastened past study quality, as adamant by research blueprint, the nature of the didactics in the comparison status, implementation allegiance, and yr of publication.

Method

Operational Definitions

Due to the inconsistent awarding of the term "dyslexia" and identification of students with dyslexia across the literature, we included studies with participants formally diagnosed with dyslexia and those without a diagnosis only who exhibited WLRD (i.due east., students at risk for dyslexia, students with a learning inability in reading, or struggling readers performing in the bottom quartile on a standardized reading measure). Nosotros refer to this population equally "students with or at hazard for WLRD."

Nosotros utilized WWC definitions of "branded OG programs" and "unbranded OG interventions" to guide this review. Branded OG programs are "curricula based on the principles of sequential, multisensory Orton-Gillingham approach to teaching reading" (WWC, 2010a). To include a comprehensive listing of branded programs in this review, authors utilized each of the branded programs identified by WWC (i.e., Alphabetic Phonics, Barton Reading and Spelling Arrangement, Fundations, Herman Method, Wilson Reading Organization, Projection Read, and Dyslexia Training Program; WWC, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010h, 2010i). Nosotros as well included boosted branded programs identified in Ritchey and Goeke'due south (2006) initial review (i.e., Project Assistance, the Slingerland Approach, the Spalding Method, Starting Over) or identified in Sayeski (2019; i.e., Language!, Lindamood Bell, Recipe for Reading, Due south.P.I.R.East., Take Flying, and the Writing Road to Reading).

Unbranded OG interventions (WWC, 2010g) are interventions based on full general OG principles or interventions that combine multiple branded products based on OG principles. We required authors to self-place educational activity as OG (i.e., the authors identified the intervention as OG instruction in the manuscript) to be included in this review as an unbranded intervention.

Search Procedures

To locate all relevant studies examining OG interventions, we searched published and unpublished studies through March 2019. We did non specify a start date to behave a comprehensive review of the prove base of operations, including and extending studies from Ritchey and Goeke (2006). Nosotros conducted a computerized search of three electronic databases (i.e., Teaching Source, Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse, and PsycINFO) and ProQuest Dissertations using the following search terms: "Orton-Gillingham," "Wilson Reading," "Wilson Linguistic communication," "Alphabetic Phonics," "Herman Method," "Project Assistance," "Slingerland Approach," "Spalding Method," "Starting Over," "Project Read," "Take Flying," "Barton Reading & Spelling Organisation," "Barton Reading and Spelling Organization," "Fundations," "Dyslexia Training Program," "Recipe for Reading," or "S.P.I.R.Due east." See Figure 1 for a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; Liberati et al., 2009) diagram detailing the search process.

Nosotros conducted a ii-year hand search of the following journals: Annals of Dyslexia, Exceptional Children, Journal of Learning Disabilities, The Journal of Special Education, Learning Disabilities Research & Exercise, and Learning Inability Quarterly. We selected these journals because Ritchey and Goeke's (2006) conducted a hand search of these journals, and they contain relevant empirical research in the field of intervention research and special education. We identified two additional articles in the manus search. Finally, we conducted an bequeathed search using the reference lists from WWC reports of branded and unbranded programs (WWC, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2010g, 2010h, 2010i, 2012, 2013); we identified 16 additional studies in the WWC reports. After removing the duplicates, we screened 354 abstracts. The first two authors independently reviewed ten% of the abstracts to determine if the full text of the study should be excluded or farther reviewed for inclusion in the systematic review. The authors sorted these abstracts with 98% reliability and proceeded with sorting the remaining abstracts. Nosotros reviewed the total text of 109 manufactures, and 24 studies met inclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria

We included studies that met the following criteria:

1. Published in a peer-reviewed journal or an unpublished dissertation printed in English through March 2019.

2. Employed an experimental, quasiexperimental, or single-instance design providing a treatment and comparison to make up one's mind the experimental effect (i.east., multiple-treatment, single-group, pre-test-posttest, AB single-example, qualitative, and instance study designs were excluded).

3. Included participants in kindergarten through 12th grade identified with dyslexia, reading disabilities, learning disabilities, at risk for reading failure, or reading difficulty or at adventure for reading failure as determined past low performance on a standardized reading measure. Studies with additional participants (e.g., students without reading difficulty) were included if at least l% of the sample included the targeted population or disaggregated information were provided for these students. Nosotros included English learners, students with behavioral disorders, and students with attending deficit hyperactivity disorder if they were also identified with reading difficulty equally described previously. We excluded studies targeting students with autism, intellectual disabilities, and vision or hearing impairments.

4. Examined a branded or unbranded OG reading intervention (run into Operational Definitions) provided 1-on-ane or in small groups (i.e., we excluded OG educational activity provided in the whole-class, general education setting). We excluded multicomponent interventions (e.thousand., interventions targeting OG and additional components of reading instruction, such as vocabulary).

5. Assessed at least one of the following dependent variables: word reading, oral reading fluency, phonological awareness, phonics, spelling, vocabulary, listening comprehension, or reading comprehension.

Coding Procedures

We coded studies that met inclusion criteria using a protocol (Vaughn et al., 2014) adult for education-related intervention inquiry based on study features described in the WWC Design and Implementation Device (Valentine & Cooper, 2008) and used in previous meta-analyses (e.m. Stevens et al., 2018).

Data extraction and quality coding.

We extracted the following data from each report: (a) participant information (due east.1000., socioeconomic status, run a risk type, historic period, form, and criteria used for the pick of participants); (b) research design; (c) a detailed description of all treatment and comparison groups; (d) the length, frequency, and elapsing of the intervention provided; (e) measures; and (f) results and effect sizes (ESs).

We coded each report for written report quality based on three indicators: research design, comparing group, and implementation fidelity. We utilized the coding procedures practical in a previous meta-assay examining study quality (Austin et al., 2019). For each indicator, we assigned a rating of exemplary, acceptable, or unacceptable. For inquiry design, a study received an exemplary rating for utilizing a randomized design with a sufficiently large sample (≥twenty), an acceptable rating for use of a randomized design with an insufficient sample size (<20) or a nonrandomized blueprint with a large sample, and an unacceptable rating for use of a nonrandomized design with a pocket-size sample size. For implementation allegiance, we rated a study exemplary if clear, replicable operational definitions of treatment procedures were provided, data demonstrated high procedural fidelity (≥75%), and interobserver reliability was equal to or exceeded .90. A report received an adequate rating if adequate operational definitions of treatment procedures were provided, data demonstrated high procedural fidelity (≥75%), and interobserver reliability was at to the lowest degree .eighty. A report received an unacceptable rating if the description of treatment was such that replication would non be possible, information demonstrated poor implementation fidelity (<75%), data demonstrated poor intercoder agreement (<.eighty), or fidelity was not reported. For the comparison group indicator, studies received an exemplary rating if the majority of the students in the comparison group received an alternating treatment (i.e., supplemental, small-group reading intervention), an acceptable rating if the comparison group served as an active command (i.eastward., minimal intervention, business-as-usual intervention with minimal description), and an unacceptable rating if the comparing group received no intervention or insufficient information was provided to decide what the group received.

We used the gold-standard method (Gwet, 2001) to establish interrater reliability prior to coding. The first writer, a researcher with feel using and publishing systematic reviews with the code sail, provided an initial 4.5-60 minutes training session to the remaining authors (i.e., PhD level researcher and two PhD graduate research assistants studying reading intervention research). The researcher described the code sheet and modeled each footstep of the coding process for a sample intervention report, and then the inquiry assistants practiced coding additional intervention studies of different design types. Upon completion of the training, the coders independently coded a study to establish reliability. Coders accomplished interrater reliability scores of .96, .92, and .98 as adamant past the number of items in understanding divided by the total number of items. After establishing initial reliability, each written report was independently coded past 2 coders. The coders met to review each lawmaking sail and to identify and resolve any discrepancies. When the coders were unable to resolve a specific code, the showtime author reviewed the study, and the author team made final decisions by consensus.

Meta-Analysis Procedures for the Group Pattern Studies

Standardized hateful divergence ESs were computed as Hedges's chiliad for all studies that used an experimental or quasiexperimental group design. To compute one thousand, we used the means, standard deviations, and group sizes for the treatment and comparison groups when study authors reported these data. When studies did not contain this information, we computed g from Cohen's d and group sample sizes or from grouping means, sample sizes, and the p value of tests of grouping differences. All ESs and standard errors were computed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3.3.070) software (Borenstein et al., 2014).

Data analysis.

ESs from measures of foundational reading skills (including phonological awareness, decoding, word identification, fluency, and spelling) were meta-analyzed separately from ESs for measures of vocabulary and comprehension (reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and vocabulary) in order to determine the effects of OG instruction versus comparison educational activity on both types of reading outcomes. Fifteen studies reported results for 1 or more foundational skill measures, and 10 studies reported results for ane or more measures of vocabulary and comprehension. Most studies in each meta-analysis reported results on multiple foundational skill and/or reading comprehension measures, and some included comparisons of two or more interventions with a comparison status. As a result, we used robust variance estimation (RVE; Hedges et al., 2010) in conducting the meta-analyses. RVE accounts for the dependency within a report when the study contributes more than than i ES to a meta-analysis by adjusting the standard errors within a meta-regression model.

Using the robumeta package for R (Fisher & Tipton, 2015), we calculated beta coefficients for the meta-regression model, mean ESs, and standard errors. Because the meta-analyses included fewer than forty studies, nosotros implemented a modest-sample correction to avert inflating Type I fault (Tipton, 2015; Tipton & Pustejovsky, 2015). The mean within-study correlation between all pairs of ESs (ρ) must be specified to judge study weights and calculate the variance between studies when using RVE. As shown by Hedges et al. (2010), the value of ρ has a minimal effect on meta-regression results when implementing RVE. As recommended by Hedges et al., we evaluated the bear upon of ρ values of .2, .five, and .8 on the model parameters. The differences were minimal. We reported results from the model where ρ = .eight. Using robumeta, we first estimated intercept-only models to compute the weighted mean ESs and standard errors for foundational skill measures and vocabulary and comprehension measures. Next, two moderator variables (report quality score and publication year) were included in the meta-regression models as covariates.

Results

We practical a more than stringent inclusion criteria than that used by Ritchey and Goeke (2006; i.e., we excluded college participants and studies that examined OG teaching in general instruction, whole-class settings). The previous review included 12 studies examining OG instruction using primarily quasiexperimental designs. In the electric current corpus, we identified 24 studies. Of the 24 studies, six were too included in the original review; we excluded the remaining six studies because (a) they included college students, (b) they provided OG didactics in full general education settings, or (c) nosotros were unable to determine if participants were students with or at hazard for WLRD. Nosotros included 16 of the 24 studies in the quantitative meta-analysis (see Table 2). We were unable to include the remaining 8 studies due to insufficient sample size (i.e., <x in each group; Giess, 2005; Hook, et al. 2001; Wade, 1993; Wille, 1993; Young, 2001) or insufficient information provided to calculate ESs (Kuveke, 1996; Oakland et al., 1998; Simpson et al., 1992).

Table 2.

Experimental Study Information.

Written report	Design	due north	Grade	Take a chance blazon	Description of conditions	Total sessions	Total hours
Bisplinghoff (2015)	Quasiexperimental	21	ane	SR	T: Barton (explicit didactics of phonemic awareness and phonics with practice opportunities for decoding and spelling) C: Houghton Mifflin Reading Tool Kit (phonemic and phonological awareness, phonics and decoding, and oral reading fluency)	72	36
Christodoulou et al. (2017)	Experimental	47	M = 1.4	RD, SR	T: Lindamood-Bell Seeing Stars (multisensory pedagogy of phonological and orthographic awareness, sight word recognition, and comprehension) C: No intervention	30	100–120
Dooley (1994) a	Experimental	151	7	SR	T: Multisensory Integrated Reading and Limerick (adjusted Alphabetic Phonics) C: Traditional basal arroyo	85–90	71–75
Fritts (2016)	Experimental	86	1–4	Dyslexia, RD	T1: Corrective Reading (word attack, group reading, workbook exercises) T2: Wilson Fundations or Wilson Reading C: Teacher-selected curriculum	50	33.3
Giess (2005) b	Quasiexperimental	xviii	10, xi	LD, SR, OHI	T: Barton Reading and Spelling Arrangement (Orton-Gillingham program) C: NR	NR	NR
Gunn (1996)	Experimental	34	1	AR	T1: Consummate Auditory in Depth Discrimination (phonological awareness pedagogy and spelling and reading practice) T2: Modified Auditory in Depth Discrimination (phonological awareness instruction just) C: Basal instruction	40	twenty
Hook et al. (2001) a,b	Quasiexperimental	20	Ages vii–12	SR	T1: Orton-Gillingham T2: Fast ForWord (estimator-based phonemic and phonics didactics) C: Business concern equally usual	25	25
Kutrumbos (1993)	Quasiexperimental	40	Ages 9–14	Dyslexia, RD	T: Lindamood Auditory Discrimination In-Depth Program and Orton-Gillingham C: Remedial reading curriculum	48–60	36–45
Kuveke (1996) b	Quasiexperimental	12	Year ane: 2, 3 Year 2: 3,4	AR, SR	T: Alphabetic Phonics C: Business as usual	NR	NR
Laub (1997)	Quasiexperimental	48	3, iv	LD	T: Projection Read (direct, multisensory, systematic, sequential) C: NR	eighty	66.67
Litcher and Roberge (1979) a	Quasiexperimental	40	1	AR	T: Orton-Gillingham C: Business every bit usual	NR (i year in elapsing)	NR
Oakland et al. (1998) a,b	Quasiexperimental	48	M = four.3	Dyslexia	T: Dyslexia Grooming Program (adaptation of Alphabetic Phonics) C: Typical school-provided reading instruction	350	350
Rauch (2017)	Quasiexperimental	72	two–5	School-identified dyslexic tendencies	T: Take Flight (multisensory phonemic awareness, spelling do, comprehension strategies, fluency instruction) C: Rite Flight (district-developed intervention focusing on fluency, comprehension, and phonemic sensation; Fountas and Pinnell's Leveled Literacy Intervention)	80–472 (Mdn = 240)	80–472 (Mdn = 110)
Reed (2013)	Quasiexperimental	87	one–3	SR	T1: Sonday (accommodation of Orton-Gillingham) T2: Fast ForWord (advances from p re reading skills to phonics, decoding, spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension) T3: Both Sonday and Fast ForWord C: No intervention	NR	NR
Reuter (2006)	Experimental	26	half dozen–8	RD	T: Wilson Reading C: Typical reading didactics	70	52.5
Simpson et al. (1992) a,b	Quasiexperimental	63	Ages thirteen–xviii	LD	T: Orton-Gillingham C: Typically provided instruction	NR	Thousand = 51.nine
Stewart (2011)	Quasiexperimental	51	1	AR	T: Orton-Gillingham C: Trophies Program (traditional basal phonics pedagogy)	threescore	45
Torgesen (2007)	Experimental	335	iii	SR	Tl: Failure Free Reading (combination of computer-based lessons, workbook exercises, and teacher-led instruction to teach sight words, fluency, and comprehension) T2: SpellRead Phonological Auditory Training (systematic and explicit didactics in phonics and phonemic awareness) T3: Wilson Reading T4: Corrective Reading (explicit and systematic scripted didactics aimed to improve word identification and fluency) C: Typical school didactics (delivered mostly in individualized and small-scale-group settings)	NR	90
Torgesen (2007)	Experimental	407	5	SR	Tl: Failure Free Reading (combination of estimator-based lessons, workbook exercises, and instructor-led instruction to teach sight words, fluency, and comprehension) T2: SpellRead Phonological Auditory Training (systematic and explicit pedagogy in phonics and phonemic awareness) T3: Wilson Reading T4: Corrective Reading (explicit and systematic scripted instruction aimed to improve word identification and fluency) C: Typical school instruction (delivered mostly in individualized and minor-group settings)	NR	90
Torgesen et al. (1999)	Experimental	180	K	AR	Tl: Lindamood Bong Phonological Awareness plus synthetic phonics T2: Embedded phonics T3: Regular classroom instruction C: No treatment control	270	90
Wade (1993) b	Quasiexperimental	36	i, 2	AR	T: Project Read (direct, multisensory, systematic, sequential) C: Traditional basal reading	NR	NR
Wanzek and Roberts (2012)	Experimental	44	4	LD, RD, SR	T: Wilson Reading C: Business-as-usual school-provided intervention	85–114	42–57
Westrich-Bond (1993) a	Quasiexperimental	39	i–5	LD	T: Orton-Gillingham sequential synthetic phonics C: Ginn reading programme (remedial reading education using basal)	NR (range 1–35 months)	NR
Wille (1993) b	Quasiexperimental	10	1	SR	T: Project Read (direct, multisensory, systematic, sequential) C: Typical classroom reading teaching	twoscore	33.33
Immature (2001) b	Experimental	20	9–12	RD	Tl: Sight word teaching with tracing and Orton-Gillingham T2: Sight word instruction with writing and Orton-Gillingham C: Typically provided instruction	28	eleven.vii

The weighted mean ES for the 15 studies that included one or more measures of foundational skills was 0.22 (SE = 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [−0.33, 0.77]). The hateful ES was not statistically significantly different from cipher (p = .twoscore), indicating that students who received OG interventions did non feel significantly larger furnishings on these measures than students who received comparison reading instruction. The I ^two estimate of the percentage of heterogeneity in ESs between studies that likely is not due to gamble was 88.74%, which is considered large and sufficient for conducting moderator analyses to determine if one or more moderator variables tin can explain the heterogeneity (Higgins et al., 2003). The τ² estimate of the true variance in the population of effects for this analysis was .71, which as well indicates the presence of considerable heterogeneity in the effects of the studies in the analysis. However, the meta-regression model that included quality score and publication year as covariates indicated that neither moderator significantly predicted study ES (for quality score, b = 0.43, SE = i.03, p = .70; for publication year, b = −0.04, SE = 0.03, p = .25).

In the meta-analysis of vocabulary and comprehension measures, the weighted hateful ES for the ten included studies was 0.xiv (SE = 0.23; 95% CI = [−0.39, 0.66]). As with the foundational skills measures, the outcome of OG interventions across studies was non significantly different from zero (p = .59), meaning that students in OG interventions did non feel significantly greater benefit than students in the comparison condition. The I ² approximate of heterogeneity non likely due to take a chance variation was 81.53%, which is considered large (Higgins et al., 2003), and the τ^two approximate of the true variance in the population of effects was .38. As in the analysis of foundational skills measures, quality score was non a significant predictor of ES magnitude (b = 0.49, SE = 0.55, p = .47). However, publication year did predict the magnitude of ESs, with older studies having larger furnishings (b = −0.05, SE = 0.02, p = .02).

Publication Bias

We evaluated the study corpus for each meta-analysis for the likelihood of studies with null furnishings being absent from the analysis due to publication bias. Duval and Tweedie'due south (2000) trim-and-make full arroyo indicated that no studies likely were missing from either meta-analysis as a result of publication bias. Egger's regression test (Egger et al., 1997) also did non signal that publication bias was present in the corpus used for each of the meta-analyses.

Study Quality

We examined report quality in terms of iii indicators: research design, comparison condition instruction, and implementation fidelity (Table 3). Studies received a mean quality rating from 0 to two, with scores interpreted as unacceptable (0), acceptable (one), and exemplary (2). The mean quality rating for enquiry design was 0.95, with nigh studies receiving unacceptable or acceptable ratings. Few studies conducted randomized designs that included sufficiently large samples, and all merely one of these studies were conducted after the previous review (i.eastward., Christodoulou et al., 2017; Reuter, 2006; Torgesen et al., 2007; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012). Authors employed a quasiexperimental design in 15 studies and a randomized design in nine studies. The comparison group instruction resulted in a mean rating of ane.0. Twelve studies provided exemplary instruction to the comparison group, meaning the majority of the students received an alternate handling, such as business-as-usual supplemental intervention. The remaining studies received unacceptable ratings because either students in the comparison group received no instruction or non plenty information was reported to determine the blazon of instruction. Finally, implementation fidelity resulted in a mean rating of 0.17, with near studies (n = 20) receiving an unacceptable rating due to a lack of implementation fidelity data reported.

Table 3.

Report Quality.

Report	Design	Comparing group	Implementation fidelity	K rating
Bisplinghoff (2015)	⦿	❍	•	ane.00
Christodoulou et al. (2017)	❍	•	•	0.67
Dooley (1994) a	⦿	❍	•	ane.00
Fritts (2016)	⦿	❍	⦿	i.33
Giess (2005) b	•	•	⦿	0.33
Gunn (1996)	⦿	❍	•	one.00
Hook et al. (2001) a,b	•	❍	•	0.33
Kutrumbros (1993)	⦿	❍	•	1.00
Kuveke (1996) b	•	•	•	0.00
Laub (1997)	⦿	•	•	0.33
Litcher and Roberge (1979) a	⦿	•	•	0.33
Oakland et al. (1998) a,b	⦿	•	•	0.33
Rauch (2017)	⦿	❍	•	one.00
Reed (2013)	⦿	•	•	0.33
Reuter (2006)	❍	⦿	•	1.00
Simpson et al. (1992) a,b	⦿	•	•	0.33
Stewart (2011)	⦿	❍	•	1.00
Torgesen et al. (1999)
OG vs. no intervention	❍	•	•	0.67
OG vs. regular classroom support	❍	❍	•	1.33
Torgesen et al. (2007)	❍	❍	❍	two.00
Wade (1993) b	•	•	•	0.00
Wanzek and Roberts (2012)	❍	•	⦿	1.00
Westrich-Bond (1993) a	⦿	❍	•	1.00
Wille (1993) b	•	•	•	0.00
Young (2001) b	⦿	❍	•	i.00
Boilerplate score past indicator	0.95	i.00	0.17	0.76

Give-and-take

Nosotros aimed to systematically review existing evidence of the effects of OG interventions for students with or at risk for WLRD through 2019. We also examined whether written report quality (i.e., determined by research blueprint, comparing condition instruction, implementation fidelity, and publication year) moderated the effects of OG interventions.

Is There Scientific Evidence to Support OG Teaching for Students With WLRD?

The major finding in Ritchey and Goeke's (2006) review revealed the inquiry was merely insufficient, in the number of studies conducted and study quality, to support OG teaching equally an evidence-based practice. Almost 15 years later, the results of this meta-assay suggest OG interventions do non statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes or vocabulary and reading comprehension outcomes for students with or at risk for WLRD over and to a higher place comparison status educational activity. Despite the finding that furnishings were non statistically significant, nosotros interpret a hateful effect of 0.22 equally indicating promise that OG may positively impact student outcomes. For students with significant WLRD, who ofttimes demonstrate limited response to early reading interventions (Nelson et al., 2003; Tran et al., 2011), 0.22 may exist indicative of educationally meaningful reading progress. Yet, until a sufficient number of high-quality research studies exist, nosotros echo the cautionary recommendation provided in that initial review: Despite the continued widespread acceptance, use, and support for OG didactics, there is little evidence to date that these interventions significantly improve reading outcomes for students with or at risk for WLRD over and above comparison group instruction.

Methodological Rigor

On a calibration of 0 to ii (0 is unacceptable, i is acceptable, and 2 is exemplary), the mean quality rating across studies and quality indicators was 0.76, which falls below the adequate level and suggests concerns near the study quality represented in this corpus. In the foundational skill and vocabulary and comprehension meta-analyses, report quality did not significantly predict study ES, indicating educatee outcomes did non differ for studies rated unacceptable, acceptable, and exemplary. A closer inspection of the quality ratings for individual studies may assist to explain the lack of relationship found between study quality and ES. The five studies that received unacceptable design ratings (i.due east., authors used a nonrandomized design with a small-scale sample) were not included in the meta-analysis considering sample size was less than 10 (Giess, 2005; Claw et al., 2001; Wade, 1993; Wille, 1993) or bereft information was provided to summate ESs (Kuveke, 1996). Three of these studies received the lowest overall quality ratings (i.east., 0.00; Kuveke, 1996; Wade, 1993; Wille, 1993). It may be that the limited number of studies (north = sixteen) and the lack of variability in quality ratings (i.e., simply 3 studies receive mean rating above 1.00; 3 studies with mean rating of 0.00 were dropped from the meta-analysis) prohibited detecting a relationship between reading outcomes and study quality.

The electric current corpus revealed limited reporting of implementation fidelity (Thousand = 0.17). This finding is particularly concerning given fidelity is a group design quality indicator (Gersten et al., 2005). With the exception of 4 studies that received acceptable (Fritts, 2016; Geiss, 2005; Wanzek & Roberts, 2012) or exemplary (Torgesen et al., 2007) ratings, the remaining studies did non provide implementation fidelity data or described it with bereft detail such that replication would not exist possible. Knowing whether the intervention was implemented equally intended is essential to establishing a causal connection between the contained and dependent variables, raising concerns about the internal validity of the included studies, particularly given the importance of measuring multiple dimensions of implementation allegiance (i.east., procedural, dosage, quality; Gersten et al., 2005).

Nosotros also examined publication twelvemonth as a moderator of intervention effectiveness. Of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis, one was published in 1979, six were published in the 1990s, two were published betwixt 2000 and 2010, and seven were published after 2010. Scammacca and colleagues (2013) reported a decline in ESs for reading interventions over time, with statistically significantly different mean effects for studies published in 1980 to 2004 and 2005 to 2011. We expected studies conducted more recently would issue in smaller effects due to an increased apply in standardized measures, more rigorous research designs, and comeback in business-equally-usual instruction. This was non the example for foundational reading skill measures, as publication year did not significantly predict these outcomes for these students. Although we expected study quality to increase in more contempo studies, this was not the case. Overall low written report quality across time in this corpus may have prevented detecting a relationship between yr of publication and foundational skill outcomes. On the other hand, publication year significantly predicted ES for reading comprehension outcomes, with older studies reporting larger effects; this finding aligns with the findings from Scammacca et al. (2013). These findings need to be interpreted in light of the overall low quality of studies in this corpus. We echo Ritchey and Goeke's (2006) recommendation: We only need more than high-quality, rigorous enquiry with larger samples of students with or at chance for WLRD to fully sympathise the effects of OG interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Limitations

Several limitations are worth noting. First, nosotros expected to identify more studies that met our inclusion criteria, only these findings were based on merely 24 studies. We replicated the 2-year hand search procedures used in Ritchey and Goeke (2006), which did not include international and American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals; however, it is important to note these journals were included in the electronic database search. Second, the overall study quality of the corpus was low, limiting confidence in the findings and potentially limiting our ability to detect a human relationship betwixt study quality and the effects of OG interventions. With a more heterogenous representation of study quality across studies, it is possible that a relationship between study quality and intervention furnishings may well exist. 3rd, the ES for foundation skills 0.22 was not statistically pregnant in role due to the wide range in the magnitude of the ESs across studies. In addition, the small number of students per condition in most studies resulted in large standard errors, leading to a wide conviction interval for the mean ES. Fourth, because multiple measures were used in nigh all studies, RVE needed to be used in estimating the mean ES and its standard error; the RVE tends to result in larger standard errors when in that location is a smaller number of studies included (<forty) in the assay. Given the hateful ES of 0.22 information technology is worth because whether or not the findings would exist like across a corpus of studies with college study quality, particularly because college-quality studies are often associated with smaller ESs. Finally, we were limited in the moderator analyses we could conduct due to the small number of studies and the limited descriptions of interventions provided in the corpus. With more than studies and more detailed descriptions of interventions, additional moderator analyses could have investigated how variables such as class level or dosage moderated the furnishings of OG interventions.

Implications for Future Research

The findings from this meta-analysis raise concerns near legislation mandating OG. The findings from this synthesis suggest "promise" but not confidence or evidence-based furnishings given the research findings currently available. Hereafter intervention studies that utilize high-quality research designs, take sufficiently large samples, and report multiple dimensions of handling allegiance will determine whether OG interventions positively impact the reading outcomes for students with or at hazard for WLRD. First, high-quality, rigorous enquiry needs to examine the effects of OG compared with typical school education. Many studies in the corpus did not provide a sufficient clarification of business-as-usual instruction, which express our ability to determine the extent to which phonics was taught explicitly in the comparison condition. Information technology is of import for researchers to written report the nature of instruction provided in the comparison status, particularly with regard to explicit phonics pedagogy. These types of studies will determine whether OG interventions lead to improved reading outcomes for students with or at risk for WLRD compared with typical practice. Adjacent, rigorous research might also compare the furnishings of OG interventions to not-OG programs that share many of the same characteristics of OG interventions (i.east., systematic, explicit, sequential phonics instruction). It appears that multisensory teaching may exist the defining feature that sets OG interventions apart from other programs providing direct pedagogy in reading and spelling, but there is withal a lack of clarity nigh how OG interventions differ from not-OG interventions that provide straight instruction in decoding and encoding. We did not include multiple treatment studies comparison OG with other reading intervention programs (Acalin, 1995; Foorman et al., 1997; Moore, 1998; Torgesen et al., 2001); however, these types of studies might help make up one's mind whether OG intervention is differentially ameliorate for students with and at risk for WLRD when compared with explicit phonics programs with less accent on multisensory instruction. Finally, it would be important to examine the effects of OG for students with or at risk for WLRD at various grade levels to make up one's mind for whom and under what conditions these programs are or are not effective.

Implications for Practitioners, Parents, and Policy Makers

Recently, practitioners, parents, and policy makers accept adopted the term "scientific discipline of reading" to depict a national movement that advocates for reading instruction that aligns with all-encompassing scientific inquiry conducted over several decades and disciplines. Unfortunately, despite this extensive research base, many teachers are uninformed nearly effective early reading intervention (Spear-Swearling, 2007). Consequently, individuals with WLRD and their families take been significantly challenged in regard to receiving evidence-based instruction that is profitable. These challenges accept resulted in families sensing that schools and educators accept given upwards on their children. Equally a result, they accept reached out to groups they perceive every bit more responsive to their needs and have formed advocacy groups that are actively involved in advocating and securing dyslexia-specific legislation aimed at improving the outcomes for students with and at risk for WLRD. Often, it appears that these parent-led advocacy groups pushed legislation (come across Table 1) to provide the practices they felt were about helpful for their children, hoping that these practices would event in positive outcomes. However, we are still at the first stages of documenting what bear witness is effective for students with WLRD, such equally dyslexia. The findings from this meta-analysis exercise not definitively bear witness that OG interventions are non impactful for students with dyslexia. In addition, we are not suggesting that other reading programs are more effective than OG. Instead, findings from this meta-analysis indicate that we do not still know the answers to these questions. Electric current bear witness suggests promise but not conviction that this arroyo significantly impacts reading outcomes for this population; furthermore, current show does not suggest confidence that this is the only approach to remediating word-reading difficulties for these students. It is our hope that this meta-analysis can serve as an impetus for future research and provide testify-based guidance to practitioners, parents, and policy makers regarding pedagogy for this population of students.

Finally, many practitioners, parents, and policy makers value the multisensory component of OG instruction (International Dyslexia Association, 2020a, February 11). The majority of states have legislation mandating the utilise of multisensory reading interventions for students with WLRD. It is possible that many OG interventions are used with students with WLRD because they are marketed as providing that multisensory instruction required in country dyslexia legislation. In addition, information technology is possible that OG interventions continue to exist used in practise, despite the limited prove supporting their effectiveness, because there remains a prevailing myth that individuals with dyslexia require specialized, multisensory educational activity that is inherently different than the instruction required past other students experiencing WLRD (Thorwarth, 2014).

Nosotros argue that there are 2 reasons to question promoting multisensory teaching as a necessary component of reading intervention for students with WLRD. There is niggling consensus in the field effectually how we define and operationalize multisensory reading instruction. There is no universal definition of this type of instruction beyond the simultaneous use of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic or tactile learning experiences during reading and spelling education. Ane concern with identifying the multisensory component as the crucial ingredient in OG instruction is that at that place is non a clear agreement of what multisensory education includes beyond OG programs, how it is applied, and the proportion of instruction it occupies. Effective literacy instruction, in full general, involves all of a reader's senses—visual and auditory experiences seeing and reading words aloud and kinesthetic or tactile experiences spelling and writing words. In fact, substantial prove supports the integration of phonics and spelling education to improve students' discussion reading (e.one thousand., Graham & Santangelo, 2014), which would pb many to believe that most early on reading programs offer multisensory instruction. Current research does non betoken that the simultaneous use of these senses positively impacts students reading outcomes, only additional research is needed to understand what this type of instruction looks like in OG interventions and whether this blazon of instruction has added benefit for students with and at hazard for WLRD.

Conclusion

In summary, the findings from this meta-analysis practice non provide definitive show that OG interventions significantly improve the reading outcomes of students with or at gamble for WLRD, such equally dyslexia. Nonetheless, the hateful ES of 0.22 indicates OG interventions may hold promise for positively impacting the reading outcomes of this population of students. Additional high-quality research is needed to identify whether OG interventions are or are not constructive for students with and at run a risk for WLRD. Because OG interventions are firmly entrenched in policy and practice with limited prove supporting their utilize, we promise that this meta-analysis propels researchers to conduct additional high-quality research to provide the evidence necessary to inform policies and practices for students with WLRD.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in office past the 5P50 HD052117-12 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Establish of Kid Wellness and Human Evolution and Grant H325H140001 from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S Department of Education. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Establish of Kid Health and Human Development, the National Institutes of Health, or the U.Due south. Department of Pedagogy. We give thanks Dr. Jack Fletcher for his feedback and guidance on this manuscript.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Acalin TA (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project READ (Publication No. 1361908) [Master'south thesis, California State Academy–Fullerton; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Austin CR, Wanzek J, Scammacca NK, Vaughn Due south, Gesel SA, Donegan RE, & Engelmann ML (2019). The relationship between written report quality and the effects of supplemental reading interventions: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 347–366. 10.1177/0014402918796164 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Bisplinghoff SE (2015). The effectiveness of an Orton-Gillingham-Stillman-influenced approach to reading intervention for low achieving commencement-course students (Publication No. 3718126) [Chief'due south thesis, Florida Gulf Declension University; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, & Rothstein HR (2014). Comprehensive meta-assay (Version iii.3.070) [Estimator software]. Biostat. https://www.meta-analysis.com/ [Google Scholar]

* Christodoulou JA, Cyr A, Murtagh J, Chang P, Lin J, Guarino AJ, Hook P, & Gabrieli JD (2017). Impact of intensive summer reading intervention for children with reading disabilities and difficulties in early on unproblematic school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, fifty(two), 115–127. 10.1177/0022219415617163 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards (7th ed.). [Google Scholar]

* Dooley B (1994). Multisensorially integrating reading and limerick: Effects on achievement of remedial readers in middle school (Publication No. 9428328) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman'due south University; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Duval S, & Tweedie R (2000). Trim and fill: A uncomplicated funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-assay. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. x.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Egger M, Davey Smith One thousand, Schneider M, & Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical examination. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. 50. No. 114–95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015–2016).

Foorman BR, Francis DJ, Winikates D, Mehta P, Schatschneider C, & Fletcher JM (1997). Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, ane(3), 255–276. 10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_5 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Fritts JL (2016). Straight instruction and Orton-Gillingham reading methodologies: Effectiveness of increasing reading achievement of elementary schoolhouse students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 10168236) [Master's thesis, Northeastern University; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Gersten R, Fuchs LS, Compton D, Coyne M, Greenwood C, & Innocenti MS (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. ten.1177/001440290507100202 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Giess Due south (2005). Effectiveness of a multisensory, Orton-Gillingham-influenced approach to reading intervention for high school students with reading disability (Publication No. 3177972) [Chief's thesis, Academy of Florida; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Graham South, & Santangelo T (2014). Does spelling educational activity make students better spelling, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. 10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Gunn BK (1996). An investigation of 3 approaches to didactics phonological awareness to commencement-grade students and the effects on give-and-take recognition (Publication No. 9706736) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Gwet G (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: How to estimate the level of agreement between two or multiple raters. STATAXIS. [Google Scholar]

Hedges LV, Tipton E, & Johnson MC (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, one(ane), 39–65. 10.1002/jrsm.5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, & Altman DG (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 327(7414), 557–560. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Hook PE, Macaruso P, & Jones Southward (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord preparation on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties: A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(ane), 73–96. 10.1007/s11881-001-0006-ane [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Individuals With Disabilities Pedagogy Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq . (2004).

* Kutrumbos BM (1993). The effect of phonemic training on unskilled readers: A school-based study (Publication No. 9333368) [Master's thesis, University of Denver; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

* Laub CM (1997). Effectiveness of Project Read on word attack skills and comprehension for third and fourth form students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 1386289) [Master'southward thesis, California State Academy–Fresno; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, & Moher D (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. x.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lim L, & Oei AC (2015). Reading and spelling gains following one twelvemonth of Orton- Gillingham intervention in Singaporean students with dyslexia. British Periodical of Special Education, 42(iv), 374–389. 10.1111/1467-8578.12104 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Litcher JH, & Roberge LP (1979). Outset form intervention for reading achievement of loftier risk children. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 29, 238–244. 10.1007/bf02653745 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lyon GR, Shaywitz SE, & Shaywitz BA (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(i), i–14. 10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Moore AE (1998). The effects of educational activity reading to learning disabled students using an explicit phonics programme combined with the Carbo Recorded Book Method (Publication No. 1391450) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Adult female'south University; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

National Middle for Educational activity Statistics. (2017). NAEP: The nation'southward written report cards. An overview of NAEL.

National Center for Didactics Statistics. (2019). NAEP: The nation's study cards. An overview of NAEL.

National Center on Improving Literacy. (2021). State of dyslexia: Explore dyslexia legislation and related initiatives in the U.s. of America. https://improvingliteracy.org/state-of-dyslexia

Nelson RJ, Benner GJ, & Gonzalez J (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Inquiry & Practise, xviii(iv), 255–267. 10.1111/1540-5826.00080 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Oakland T, Black JL, Stanford G, Nussbaum NL, & Balise RR (1998). An evaluation of the dyslexia grooming programme: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 140–147. x.1177/002221949803100204 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Odegard TN, Farris EA, Middleton AE, Oslund E, & Rimrodt-Frierson Southward (2020). Characteristics of students identified with dyslexia within the context of state legislation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 366–379. 10.1177/0022219420914551 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Rauch ALI (2017). An analysis of two dyslexia interventions (Publication No. 10288068) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman'south Academy; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

* Reed MS (2013). A comparison of calculator based and multisensory interventions on at-gamble students' reading performance [Main'due south thesis, Indiana Academy of Pennsylvania; ]. [Google Scholar]

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq . (1973).

* Reuter HB (2006). Phonological awareness instruction for center school students with disabilities: A scripted multisensory intervention (Publication No. 3251867) [Master's thesis, Academy of Oregon; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Ring J, Avrit Yard, Black J, Band JJ, Avrit KJ, & Black JL (2017). Accept Flying: The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 383–400. 10.1007/s11881-017-0151-9 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Ritchey KD, & Goeke JL (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading didactics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Pedagogy, xl(3), 171–183. 10.1177/00224669060400030501 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sayeski KL, Earle GA, Davis R, & Calamari J (2019). Orton Gillingham: Who, what, and how. Education Exceptional Children, 51(3), 240–249. 10.1177/0040059918816996 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Scammacca Northward, Roberts Thou, Vaughn S, & Stuebing K (2013). A meta-assay of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Periodical of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. x.1177/0022219413504995 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Simpson SB, Swanson JM, & Kunkel 1000 (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading plan on a population of learning-disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42(1), 54–66. ten.1007/BF02654938 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Spear-Swerling L (2007). The research-practice divide in commencement reading. Theory Into Exercise, 46(4), 301–308. x.1080/00405840701593881 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Stevens EA, Park S, & Vaughn South (2018). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in Grades 3 through 12: 1978–2016. Remedial and Special Pedagogy, 40(3), 131–149. 10.1177/0741932517749940 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Stewart ED (2011). The touch on of systematic multisensory phonics instructional design on the decoding skills of struggling readers (Publication No. 3443911) [Primary's thesis, Walden Academy; ). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

Thorwarth C (2014). Debunking the myths of Dyslexia. Leadership and Research in Pedagogy, one, 51–66. [Google Scholar]

Tipton E (2015). Pocket-sized sample adjustments for robust variance interpretation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. 10.1037/met0000011 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tipton E, & Pustejovsky JE (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Periodical of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, forty(6), 604–634. 10.3102/1076998615606099 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller K, & Conway T (2001). Intensive remedial education for children with severe reading disabilities: Firsthand and long-term outcomes from ii instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(one), 33–58. 10.1177/002221940103400104 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Torgesen J, Schirm A, Castner L, Vartivarian S, Mansfield W, Myers D, Stancavage F, Durno D, Javorsky R, & Haan C (2007). National assessment of Championship I: Final written report. Volume Two. Closing the reading gap: Findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers (NCEE 2008–4013). National Center for Teaching Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084013.pdf [Google Scholar]

* Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Rose E, Lindamood P, Conway T, & Garvan C (1999). Preventing reading failure in immature children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to education. Periodical of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 579–593. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tran L, Sanchez T, Arellano B, & Swanson LH (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for read ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(iii), 283–295. 10.1177/0022219410378447 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Uhry JK, & Clark DB (2005). Dyslexia: Theory and exercise of instruction (tertiary ed.). Pro-Ed. [Google Scholar]

Valentine JC, & Cooper H (2008). What Works Clearinghouse written report design and implementation cess device (Version 1.0). U.S. Department of Education. [Google Scholar]

Vaughn Southward, Denton C, & Fletcher J (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47(v), 432–444. ten.1002/pits.20481 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Vaughn S, Elbaum BE, Wanzek J, Scammacca Northward, & Walker MA (2014). Lawmaking sheet and guide for pedagogy related intervention study syntheses. Meadows Heart for Preventing Educational Adventure. [Google Scholar]

* Wade JJ (1993). Project Read versus basal reading programme with respect to reading achievement, mental attitude toward schoolhouse and cocky-concept (Publication No. 9417849) [Principal'southward thesis, The University of Southern Mississippi; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

* Wanzek J, & Roberts G (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(two), 90–101. 10.1177/0731948711434047 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

* Westrich-Bond A (1993). The effect of straight didactics of a synthetic sequential phonics program on the decoding abilities of simple school learning disabled students (Publication No. 9415253) [Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

* Wille GA (1993). Projection Read as an early intervention programme (Publication No. 1353782) [Master'south thesis, California Land University–Fullerton; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

* Young CA (2001). Comparison effects of tracing to writing when combined with Orton-Gillingham methods on spelling achievement among high school students with reading disabilities (Publication No. 3064692) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin; ]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. [Google Scholar]

maloneviser1942.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8497161/

Share this post