LiPS has potentially negative effects on writing: comparison students significantly outperformed LiPS students on the KTEA Spelling subtest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The study found, and the WWC confirmed, a statistically significant effect favoring the Embedded Phonics comparison group on the KTEA Spelling subtest, with an effect size of –0.58 and an improvement index of –22 percentile points. → What Works Clearinghouse 2010

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2010¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2010). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®). Students with Learning Disabilities. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/279

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Posttest spelling finding from the Torgesen et al. (2001) RCT (n = 50). The printed effect size of –0.58 favored the comparison group (mean difference –3.7), reaching statistical significance at α = 0.05 in both author and WWC analyses.

"Torgesen et al. (2001) found, and the WWC confirmed, a statistically significant effect favoring the control group on the Spelling subtest from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The evidence base for LiPS with students with learning disabilities is small: one RCT met WWC standards out of 31 reviewed studies — related
• 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 potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures — related
• No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis — related
• LiPS shows potentially positive effects on reading fluency: authors found significant effects on GORT–III Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate, but WWC analyses did not confirm significance — related