Spelling Mastery showed substantively important but not statistically significant positive effects on all four writing measures in a grades 2–4 RCT against basal spelling instruction¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 In Darch et al. (2006), 42 students with learning disabilities in grades 2–4 randomly assigned to Spelling Mastery did not show a statistically significant positive effect on any of the four writing measures, but both the study authors and the WWC found substantively important positive effects on all four measures. → darch-2006

Evidence¶

darch-2006¶

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2014, January). Students with Learning Disabilities intervention report: Spelling Mastery. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/579

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Randomized controlled trial of 42 students with learning disabilities in grades 2–4 at three elementary schools in eastern Alabama; students were randomly assigned to Spelling Mastery or a basal spelling comparison over sixteen 30-minute sessions. Appendix C prints effect sizes of 0.39 (TWS-3), 0.43 (Generalization), 0.41 (Transfer), and 0.47 (Maintenance), with p-values of 0.14, 0.10, 0.12, and 0.08, and a domain average of 0.43 (+16).

"Darch et al. (2006) did not find a statistically significant positive effect of Spelling Mastery on any of the four measures of writing. However, both the study authors and the WWC found substantively important positive effects on all four measures of writing: the Test of Written Spelling, and three tests created for the study (a Generalization test, a Transfer test, and a Maintenance test)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Spelling Mastery produced statistically significant positive effects on all three writing measures in a fourth-grade RCT against Visual Imagery instruction — related
• Spelling Mastery has potentially positive effects on writing for students with learning disabilities, based on two RCTs with a small extent of evidence — a broader claim this one bears on
• On the TWS-3 subtests in the 2006 RCT, Spelling Mastery favored the Predictable Words subtest (effect size 0.57, WWC-adjusted p = 0.07) over the Unpredictable Words subtest (effect size 0.11) — related