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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Across two studies, alphabetics effects were inconsistent: statistically significant positive in Torgesen et al. (2010) and substantively important negative in Gunn (1996); the cross-study domain average effect size was 0.15 (improvement index +6). → 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 · quant-synthesis · r1

WWC synthesis of two randomized trials totaling 97 first-grade students in five schools. The printed cross-study domain average effect size for alphabetics is 0.15 (improvement index +6), combining Torgesen et al. (2010) at 0.63 (+24) and Gunn (1996) at –0.33 (–13).

"Thus, for the alphabetics domain, one study showed a statistically significant positive effect and one study showed a substantively important negative effect. This results in a rating of mixed effects, with a small extent of evidence."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In Gunn (1996), LiPS effects on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding were negative and substantively important but not statistically significant — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• LiPS has potentially positive effects on comprehension for beginning readers, based on one randomized trial showing a statistically significant positive effect on passage comprehension — related
• Reading Recovery has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for beginning readers — related
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related