Word-reading interventions significantly improve decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling (g = 0.29-0.45) but not reading fluency¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr?·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i1 Subgroup summary effects were significant for decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling outcomes (g = 0.29-0.45), but not for reading fluency. → Julia J. Yi 2026
Evidence¶
Julia J. Yi 2026¶
Julia J. Yi, A. Angelique Aitken, Emily Sharp, Adiba Nusrat, Micheal Sandbank. (2026). What Works for Teaching Word Reading to Adolescents? A Meta-Analytic Investigation. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10124-9
q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r?
Subgroup summary effects by outcome type from the RVE meta-analysis, compared using Approximate Hotelling's T2 tests with CR2-type robust variance estimation. The printed effect sizes are g = 0.29-0.45: effects were "significant for outcomes measuring decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling" but not fluency.
"Effects were significant for outcomes measuring decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling ( g = 0.29 – 0.45) but not for reading fluency."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading Fluency — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension 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
- Morphological instruction improves word-level literacy outcomes (decoding, spelling, vocabulary, morphological knowledge) but shows no reliable effect on reading comprehension — related
- 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
- 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
- Morphological Instruction Improves Vocabulary — related
- Word-reading interventions yield significant positive effects on adolescent literacy outcomes overall (g = 0.30) — related
- Multisyllabic word-reading instruction for struggling readers in grades 4–9 has strong evidence, based on 32 studies — related
- Computer-assisted word reading interventions yield an average effect size of 0.36 on word reading outcomes across program types and languages in primary grades — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
word-reading-interventions-outcome-type-effects |
title |
Word-reading interventions significantly improve decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling (g = 0.29-0.45) but not reading fluency |
description |
Word-reading interventions significantly improve decoding, nonword decoding, reading comprehension, and spelling (g = 0.29-0.45) but not reading fluency |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-20 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — julia-j-yi-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.