One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-07 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At 1-year follow-up versus comparison, the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension effect was not statistically significant after multiple-comparison correction, while several alphabetics subtests (e.g., Word Attack effect size 0.70, +26, p < .01) remained significant. → 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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Supplemental 1-year follow-up findings for 74 first-grade students in three schools. Passage Comprehension effect size 0.47 (+18, p = .05) fell below the corrected critical p of .025; GORT-3 Comprehension was 0.25 (+10, p = .28). Supplemental findings do not factor into the effectiveness rating.

"a correction for multiple comparisons was needed for the 1-year follow-up of LiPS® vs. comparison contrast and resulted in a WWC-computed critical p-value of .025 for the WRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest (vs. comparison), 1-year follow-up; therefore, the WWC does not find the result to be statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no discernible effects on reading comprehension or vocabulary for beginning readers — related
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no statistically significant alphabetics advantages over the Auditory Discrimination in Depth® comparison — related
• One year after the intervention, Reading Mastery showed a statistically significant effect on word attack for English language learners, with positive but non-significant differences on other reading measures — related
• One year after the intervention ended, SpellRead™ effects were not statistically significant on the supplemental Torgesen et al. (2007) outcomes — related
• LiPS has no discernible effects on reading comprehension for students with learning disabilities — related
• LiPS has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures — related
• The WWC rates PALS as having potentially positive effects on alphabetics, no discernible effects on fluency, and mixed effects on comprehension for beginning readers — related
• Four remedial reading interventions combined improved phonemic decoding, word reading accuracy and fluency, and reading comprehension for third-grade struggling readers one year after the interventions ended, though not on all measures — related
• Supplemental first-grade interventions for ELLs improved phonological and word-level skills but not comprehension, with comprehension gains emerging at one-year follow-up — related
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows statistically significant positive effects on phoneme segmenting and word attack relative to regular classroom instruction for low-achieving first graders — 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 — related