LiPS has potentially positive effects on comprehension for beginning readers, based on one randomized trial showing a statistically significant positive effect on passage comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Torgesen et al. (2010) found a statistically significant and substantively important positive effect of LiPS on WRMT-R Passage Comprehension compared to standard reading instruction alone (effect size 0.54, improvement index +20, p = .02). → 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 · i2 · review · r3

Randomized controlled trial in three elementary schools; the WWC-calculated effect for 74 first-grade students on WRMT-R Passage Comprehension was an effect size of 0.54 (improvement index +20, p = .02), favoring LiPS over comparison. The report characterizes this as "a statistically significant positive effect."

"Torgesen et al. (2010) found a statistically significant and substantively important positive effect of LiPS® on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised (WRMT-R) Passage Comprehension subtest when compared to the standard reading instruction alone."

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 · i2 · review · r3

Appendix C.1 table for Torgesen et al. (2010) prints intervention mean 102.20 (10.00) vs comparison 95.40 (14.40), mean difference 6.80, effect size 0.54, improvement index +20, p = .02 for WRMT-R Passage Comprehension.

"102.20 (10.00) 95.40 (14.40) 6.80 0.54 +20 .02"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related
• The WWC rates Reading Mastery as having potentially positive effects on the reading achievement of English language learners — related
• 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 no discernible effects on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities — reports the opposite
• LiPS shows potentially positive effects on math: no statistically significant effect on the WJ–R Calculation subtest, but a positive effect size of 0.30 judged substantively important — related
• Students in the Readable English intervention group showed significant improvements in reading fluency and comprehension compared to the control group — related