One year after the intervention ended, SpellRead™ effects were not statistically significant on the supplemental Torgesen et al. (2007) outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Supplemental one-year follow-up findings from Torgesen et al. (2007) showed small, non-significant effect sizes, including –0.06 for WRMT-R Passage Comprehension and –0.07 for the Oral Reading Fluency test. → followup-findings

Evidence¶

followup-findings¶

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, January). Adolescent Literacy intervention report: SpellRead™. http://whatworks.ed.gov

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Supplemental findings table reporting students’ outcomes one year after the end of the intervention for 100 students in eight school units. The WRMT-R Passage Comprehension effect size was –0.06 with p > 0.05; the Oral Reading Fluency effect size was –0.07 and GRADE Passage Comprehension –0.07, all non-significant.

"WRMT-R: Passage Comprehension subtest Grade 5 8 school units/ 100 students 89.10 (15.00) 90.00 (15.00) –0.90 –0.06 –3 > 0.05"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the Torgesen et al. (2006) RCT, SpellRead™ showed indeterminate effects for fifth graders, with no statistically significant or substantively important effects in any domain after six months — 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
• Longer-run effects of targeted secondary interventions are small and not statistically significant, with only seven studies providing follow-up evidence — a broader claim this one bears on
• Comprehension effects of SpellRead™ differed between the two studies: Torgesen et al. found no significant effects while Rashotte et al. found significant effects on both outcomes — 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