No individual alphabetics outcome reached statistical significance in the WWC analysis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-15 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 Individual phonological awareness, letter knowledge, print awareness and phonics findings were not statistically significant after WWC corrections for clustering and multiple comparisons. → Voyager Universal Literacy System® — WWC Intervention Report 2007

Evidence¶

Voyager Universal Literacy System® — WWC Intervention Report 2007¶

Voyager Universal Literacy System® — WWC Intervention Report. (2007). What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/538

q2 · i1 · WWC domain average effect size 0.28, not statistically significant · quant-synthesis · r1

WWC re-analysis of findings from both studies; corrections for clustering and multiple comparisons were needed, "so the significance levels differ from those reported in the original studies." The WWC prints an effect size for each finding: across the two studies the individual alphabetics effect sizes range from −0.20 to 0.74 (for example 0.57 on CTOPP Segmenting Words in Hecht, 2003), none statistically significant; the study averages are 0.45 (Frechtling, Zhang, & Silverstein, 2006) and 0.10 (Hecht, 2003), and the domain average is 0.28 (+11 percentile points).

"Hecht (2003) examined effects for three phonological awareness measures (Blending, CTOPP Elision, and CTOPP Segmentation) and found a positive and statistically significant effect on the CTOPP Segmentation subtest. None of these effects were statistically significant according to the WWC analysis."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Alphabet Knowledge and Print Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it
• Auditory Processing — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In the Nelson, Stage, Epstein, & Pierce (2005) RCT, SSL produced statistically significant positive effects on all four alphabetics outcomes — reports the opposite
• The WWC rated Waterford Early Reading Program™ as having potentially positive effects on alphabetics, based on a substantively important average effect size with no statistically significant individual outcomes — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• In the Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez (2005) RCT, SSL produced statistically significant positive effects on all five alphabetics outcomes — 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 statistically significant alphabetics advantages over the Auditory Discrimination in Depth® comparison — related
• DaisyQuest outperformed math-oriented control software on phonological awareness and phonics measures — 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
• Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training has potentially positive effects on preschoolers' early reading/writing — related
• The WWC found Voyager Universal Literacy System® had potentially positive effects on alphabetics for kindergarten students — related
• Author-reported statistically significant program effects did not remain significant after WWC corrections for clustering and multiple comparisons — related
• Statistically significant effects reported by the CDP studies were not statistically significant as recalculated by the WWC — related
• LiPS has potentially positive effects on alphabetics for students with learning disabilities, with statistically significant advantages on two of eight measures — reports the opposite
• PALS showed no statistically significant effects on near-transfer and far-transfer reading fluency for first graders — related
• Waterford Early Reading Level One™ and Let's Begin with the Letter People® produce similar outcomes in oral language and print knowledge — 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
• Instruction in language, phonological awareness, and decoding improved performance in the taught domain, while interventions teaching print knowledge or early writing exclusively did not — related
• Reading Recovery produces two positive outcomes: reaching average levels within 20 weeks or reliable referral for further testing — related
• An 11-week teacher-delivered phonological awareness intervention significantly improves kindergarten children's phoneme segmentation, letter knowledge, reading, and invented spelling — reports the opposite
• Alphabet instruction benefits did not transfer to letter-word identification, phonological awareness, emergent reading, or developmental spelling — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no discernible effects on reading comprehension or vocabulary for beginning readers — related
• The Frechtling, Zhang, and Silverstein (2006) study showed a substantively important positive average alphabetics effect, while Hecht (2003) did not — related
• Only the discussion of the Flex vs. Plain phonics trial reports that, for students with full week-6 attendance, Flex showed greater gains than Plain on taught-letter alphabetics, decoding, and word reading; its results report no treatment differences or interactions — related
• Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — reports the opposite
• LiPS has potentially negative effects on writing: comparison students significantly outperformed LiPS students on the KTEA Spelling subtest — related
• Early Reading First had positive, statistically significant impacts on children's print and letter knowledge — related
• DaisyQuest outperformed alternative reading software on phonological awareness in at-risk first graders — reports the opposite