In Gunn (1996), LiPS effects on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding were negative and substantively important but not statistically significant¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr1·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-18 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i1 Gunn (1996) found negative, substantively important, non-significant effects on WRMT-R Word Identification and Word Attack subtests (domain average effect size –0.33, improvement index –13). → Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®): Beginning Reading 2015
Evidence¶
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®): Beginning Reading 2015¶
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®): Beginning Reading. (2015). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/280
q3 · i1 · causal · r1
Cluster randomized trial in two elementary schools; analytic sample of 23 first-grade students (11 LiPS, 12 basal comparison). Printed effect sizes: Word Attack –0.35 (–14, p = .57); Word Identification –0.31 (–12, p = .62); domain average effect size –0.33 (–13), not statistically significant.
"Gunn (1996) found effects of LiPS ® on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding that were not statistically significant but were negative and substantively important, as measured by the WRMT-R Word Identification and Word Attack subtests."
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®): Beginning Reading 2015 (2)¶
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®): Beginning Reading. (2015). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/280
q3 · i1 · review · r3
Appendix C.2 table for Gunn (1996) prints WRMT-R Word Attack means of 2.82 (2.99) for LiPS vs 4.25 (4.58) for comparison, mean difference –1.43, effect size –0.35, improvement index –14, p = .57, based on posttest-only means.
"2.82 (2.99) 4.25 (4.58) –1.43 –0.35 –14 .57"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- In Torgesen et al. (2010), LiPS produced statistically significant positive effects on word accuracy/fluency, phonemic decoding, phonological awareness, and spelling versus a basal reading program — related
- LiPS has mixed effects on alphabetics for beginning readers: positive and statistically significant in one trial, negative and substantively important (but not significant) in another — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
gunn-1996-negative-nonsignificant-alphabetics |
title |
In Gunn (1996), LiPS effects on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding were negative and substantively important but not statistically significant |
description |
In Gunn (1996), LiPS effects on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding were negative and substantively important but not statistically significant |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
source_checked |
2026-10-18 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — lindamood-phoneme-sequencing-lips-beginning-reading-2015, lindamood-phoneme-sequencing-lips-beginning-reading-2015-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.