The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Differences between treatment and control groups on decoding, spelling, and word recognition measures other than Word Attack were in the expected direction but not statistically significant and all were small. → Alamprese 2011

Evidence¶

Alamprese 2011¶

Alamprese, J. A., MacArthur, C. A., Price, C., & Knight, D. (2011). Effects of a Structured Decoding Curriculum on Adult Literacy Learners' Reading Development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.555294

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Impact analysis across the 11 reading measures in the same program-level randomized trial. Table 2 shows impacts such as Letter-Sound Survey 0.03 (p = .828) and WRAT3 Word Reading 0.11 (p = .371); "none of them were statistically significant".

"Although differences were in the expected direction for all of the decoding, spelling, and word recognition measures, none of them were statistically significant and all were small (Cohen, 1988)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults who completed supplemental basic-skills tutoring showed significant pre-to-post gains across a battery of decoding, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension measures — related
• Learners in K-3 structured decoding curricula adapted for adults (comparison group) did not differ significantly from treatment or control groups on any reading measure — related
• The MSDS structured decoding curriculum produced a small but significant effect on adult learners' pseudoword decoding (WJR Word Attack) relative to control instruction — related
• Phonics instruction has a small but statistically confirmed effect for children with reading disabilities, while Orton-Gillingham structured-literacy programs show positive but non-significant effects — 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
• 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
• LiPS has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures — related
• Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — 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
• Systematic phonics outperforms unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on children's reading overall, but its advantage over whole-word teaching on novel words is untested in children and contested — related
• Non-native English learners made significantly greater reading gains than native learners on 7 of 11 measures, while native learners gained more on vocabulary — related
• Treatment effects on word recognition differed by native status: the curriculum was more effective for native than non-native adults, though subgroup impacts were not individually significant — related
• Word-reading interventions significantly improve decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling (g = 0.29-0.45) but not reading fluency — related
• Word-reading interventions yield significant positive effects on adolescent literacy outcomes overall (g = 0.30) — related
• Struggling adult readers made significant reading gains across all instructional groups, but all improvements were associated with small effect sizes — related
• In a reservation-school literacy assessment study, fourth-grade AI/AN students were average or above in phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary, and reading rate but low in comprehension — related
• A 13-week multicomponent small-group reading intervention did not produce significantly better word reading, comprehension, or fluency outcomes than typical remedial instruction for middle school students with severe reading difficulties — related
• Only one between-group difference emerged: the Control/Comparison, Decoding and Fluency, and DCEF groups showed stronger word attack outcomes than the Extensive Reading group — related
• Literacy First shows strong ESSA evidence of positive effects in phonics and related alphabetics, reading fluency, and reading comprehension for grades K–2 — related
• Program-specific gains appeared only in isolated t-tests: GRR on reading comprehension and RAVE-O on word-level efficiency measures — related
• The program showed no significant overall math difference, though items on visual-spatial vocabulary and nonstandard measurement improved for the treatment condition — related
• The multi-component intervention produced statistically significant advantages over business-as-usual on one decoding measure (ES = 0.58) and one fluency measure (ES = 0.46), but not on reading comprehension — related