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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · reviewr3·q3·i2medium
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i2 Torgesen et al. (2010) found statistically significant and substantively important positive effects of LiPS on alphabetics outcomes versus the basal reading program alone (domain average effect size 0.63, improvement index +24). → 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 trial with 74 first-grade students at risk for reading difficulty in three schools; students received on average 84.5 hours of LiPS instruction in groups of three, four 50-minute sessions weekly from October through May. The printed domain average effect size for alphabetics is 0.63 (improvement index +24); WWC confirmed significance after multiple-comparison adjustment.
"Torgesen et al. (2010) found statistically significant and substantively important positive effects of LiPS ® on word accuracy/fluency, phonemic decoding, reading comprehension, phonological awareness, and spelling when compared to the basal reading program 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.2 prints WRMT-R Word Attack means of 113.70 (12.10) for LiPS vs 99.50 (15.00) for comparison, effect size 1.03, improvement index +35, p < .01; the other eight alphabetics effect sizes were 0 for CTOPP Rapid Letter Naming (p > .99) and 0.48 to 0.93 for the rest, with CTOPP Blending Words not significant after correction (critical p = .044).
"113.70 (12.10) 99.50 (15.00) 14.20 1.03 +35 < .01"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it
- Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- In Gunn (1996), LiPS effects on word accuracy/fluency and phonemic decoding were negative and substantively important but not statistically significant — 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 — a broader claim this one bears on
- 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
- One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related
- Four of six standards-meeting studies showed statistically significant positive effects and two showed substantively important positive effects on phonological processing — related
- No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis — related
- LiPS has potentially negative effects on writing: comparison students significantly outperformed LiPS students on the KTEA Spelling subtest — related
- LiPS has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures — related
- SFA® shows positive effects on alphabetics for beginning readers in grades K–4 — related
- Multisyllabic word-reading instruction improves reading for students in grades 4–9 with reading difficulties, with strong supporting evidence — a broader claim this one bears on
- The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes — related
- Word-reading interventions significantly improve decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling (g = 0.29-0.45) but not reading fluency — related
- Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — a broader claim this one bears on
- LiPS shows potentially positive effects on reading fluency: authors found significant effects on GORT–III Reading Accuracy and Reading Rate, but WWC analyses did not confirm significance — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
torgesen-2010-positive-alphabetics-effects |
title |
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 |
description |
In Torgesen et al. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
source_checked |
2026-10-19 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-07 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — lindamood-phoneme-sequencing-lips-beginning-reading-2015, lindamood-phoneme-sequencing-lips-beginning-reading-2015-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.