LiPS has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In the Torgesen et al. (2001) RCT, LiPS students significantly outperformed Embedded Phonics comparison students on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (effect size 0.93) and the WRMT–R Word Attack subtest (effect size 0.99). → What Works Clearinghouse 2010 q3 i? Neither the study authors nor the WWC found statistically significant effects for the other six alphabetics measures; the domain average effect size was 0.23 and not statistically significant. → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

Randomized controlled trial (Torgesen et al., 2001) of 50 fourth-grade students with learning disabilities randomly assigned to LiPS or Embedded Phonics. WWC analyses corrected for multiple comparisons confirmed the significant findings; the printed effect sizes were 0.93 (LAC) and 0.99 (Word Attack), with "statistically significant effects favoring the LiPS® group".

"The study authors found statistically significant effects favoring the LiPS® group for two of the eight measures, including the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test and the Word Attack subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised."

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
• LiPS has potentially negative effects on writing: comparison students significantly outperformed LiPS students on the KTEA Spelling subtest — related
• No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis — reports the opposite
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — 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 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
• Reading Go! tutoring produced significantly positive decoding and word-reading outcomes for low-performing first graders compared to students who did not receive the program — related
• A program is said to have an effect when the difference between program and non-program groups is statistically significant — a broader claim this one bears on
• The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes — related
• LiPS has no discernible effects on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities — related