Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Word-Level Reading Disabilities

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grassroots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis and What Works Clearinghouse reports yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; effect size [ES] = 0.32; p = .24), although the mean ES was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .57) for students with or at risk for WLRD. More high-quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Download Full-text

Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students with or at Risk for Word-level Reading Disabilities

10.35542/osf.io/37b9p ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Elizabeth A Stevens ◽

Christy Austin ◽

Clint Moore ◽

Nancy K. Scammacca ◽

Alexis N. Boucher ◽

...

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Reading Instruction ◽

Reading Disabilities ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reading Outcomes ◽

Grass Roots ◽

Word Level ◽

Current State ◽

Rigorous Research

Over the past decade, parent advocacy groups led a grass-roots movement resulting in most states adopting dyslexia-specific legislation, with many states mandating the use of the Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction. Orton-Gillingham is a direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive approach to reading for students with or at-risk for world-level reading disabilities (WLRD). Evidence from a prior synthesis (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006) and What Works Clearinghouse reports (WWC, 2010) yielded findings lacking support for the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions on the reading outcomes of students with or at risk for WLRD. Findings suggested Orton-Gillingham reading interventions do not statistically significantly improve foundational skill outcomes (i.e., phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, spelling; ES = 0.22, p = .40); though the mean effect size was positive in favor of Orton-Gillingham-based approaches. Similarly, there were not significant differences for vocabulary and comprehension outcomes (ES = 0.14; p = .59) for students with or at-risk for WLRD. More high quality, rigorous research with larger samples of students with WLRD is needed to fully understand the effects of Orton-Gillingham interventions on the reading outcomes for this population.

Download Full-text

Beginning Reading Instruction for Students at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Intervention in School and Clinic ◽

10.1177/10534512060410030601 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

pp. 161-168 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Michael D. Coyne ◽

Richard P. Zipoli ◽

Maureen F. Ruby

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Reading Instruction ◽

Reading Disabilities ◽

Beginning Reading ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Beginning Reading Instruction

Download Full-text

The impact of tier 1 reading instruction on reading outcomes for students in Grades 4–12: A meta-analysis

Reading and Writing ◽

10.1007/s11145-017-9743-3 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 30 (8) ◽

pp. 1639-1665 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Elizabeth Swanson ◽

Elizabeth A. Stevens ◽

Nancy K. Scammacca ◽

Philip Capin ◽

Alicia A. Stewart ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reading Outcomes ◽

Tier 1 ◽

The Impact

Download Full-text

Understanding the Dynamics of Dosage Response: A Nonlinear Meta-Analysis of Recent Reading Interventions

Review of Educational Research ◽

10.3102/00346543211051423 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 003465432110514

Author(s):

Garrett J. Roberts ◽

Denis G. Dumas ◽

Daniel McNeish ◽

Brooke Coté

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Effect Size ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Maximum Effect ◽

Optimal Dosage ◽

Intervention Effects ◽

Parabolic Shape ◽

Dosage Response Curve

Researchers have noted a nonlinear association between reading instruction dosage (i.e., hours of instruction) and reading outcomes for Grade K–3 students with reading difficulties (K–3 SWRD). In this article, we propose a nonlinear meta-analysis as a method to identify both the maximum effect size and optimal dosage of reading interventions for K–3 SWRD using 26 peer-reviewed studies including 186 effect sizes. Results suggested the effect sizes followed a concave parabolic shape, such that increasing dosage improved intervention effects until 39.92 hours of instruction (dmax = 0.77), after which the intervention effects declined. Moderator analyses found that maximum intervention effects on fluency outcomes were significantly larger (dmax = 1.34) than the overall maximum effect size. Also, when students received 1:1 instruction, the dosage response curve displayed a different functional form than the concave parabolic shape, showing the effect increased indefinitely after approximately 16.8 hours of instruction. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Download Full-text

Reading for Writing: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Reading Interventions on Writing

Review of Educational Research ◽

10.3102/0034654317746927 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 88 (2) ◽

pp. 243-284 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Steve Graham ◽

Xinghua Liu ◽

Brendan Bartlett ◽

Clarence Ng ◽

Karen R. Harris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Students With Disabilities ◽

Reading Instruction ◽

Writing Instruction ◽

Reading Intervention ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Teaching Reading ◽

Writing Quality ◽

Writing Performance ◽

The Impact

This meta-analysis examined if students’ writing performance is improved by reading interventions in studies (k = 54 experiments; 5,018 students) where students were taught how to read and studies (k = 36 investigations; 3,060 students) where students’ interaction with words or text was increased through reading or observing others read. Studies included in this review involved true- or quasi-experiments (with pretests) written in English that tested the impact of a reading intervention on the writing performance of students in preschool to Grade 12. Studies were not included if the control condition was a writing intervention, treatment students received writing instruction as part of the reading intervention (unless control students received equivalent writing instruction), control students received a reading intervention (unless treatment students received more reading instruction than controls), study attrition exceeded 20%, less than 10 students were included in any experimental condition, and students attended a special school for students with disabilities. As predicted, teaching reading strengthened writing, resulting in statistically significant effects for an overall measure of writing (effect size [ES] = 0.57) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.63), words written (ES = 0.37), or spelling (ES = 0.56). The impact of teaching reading on writing was maintained over time (ES = 0.37). Having students read text or observe others interact with text also enhanced writing performance, producing a statistically significant impact on an overall measure of writing (ES = 0.35) and specific measures of writing quality (ES = 0.44) or spelling (ES = 0.28). These findings provide support that reading interventions can enhance students’ writing performance.

Download Full-text

Tier 2 Interventions Within the RtI-model for Developing Students’ Word decoding – a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - PrePrint version 2

10.31234/osf.io/ukfgm ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Camilla Nilvius ◽

Rickard Carlsson ◽

Linda Fälth ◽

Thomas Nordström

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Reading Intervention ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Tier 2 ◽

Word Decoding ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Decoding Ability

AbstractBackgroundObjectives: This pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer if K-2 students at risk (Population) for reading impairment benefited from a response to tier 2 reading intervention (Intervention) compared to teaching as usual, (Comparator) on word decoding outcomes (Outcome), based on randomized controlled trials (Study type).MethodsEligibility criteria were adequately sized (n> 30 per group) randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within response to intervention targeting K-2 at risk students (percentile 40) compared with teaching as usual (TAU). Reading interventions had to be at least 20 sessions and conducted in a school setting with at least 30 students in each group and containing reading activities. TAU could not be another intervention. Only decoding tests from WRMT and TOWRE were included. Information sources: Database search was conducted 190520 in ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, WOS and additionally in Google Scholar as well as a hand search in previous reviews and meta-analyses. The searches were updated in 2021-03-21. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2, R-index and funnel plots. Synthesis of results: A random-effects model was used to analyze the effect sizes (Hedges’ g)ResultsIncluded studies: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis.Synthesis of results: The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges' g = 0.31 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding ability more than students receiving TAU. A Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect did not depend on a single study. Students at risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading intervention conducted within response to intervention regarding a small effect on the students decoding ability. DiscussionLimitations of evidence: Only four studies met inclusion criteria and all studies had at least some risk of bias.Interpretation: Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can to some extent support decoding development as a part of reading factors. Other:Funding: Thomas Nordström and Rickard Carlsson was supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2020-03430). Camilla Nilvius was supported by Swedish National Research School Special Education for Teacher Educators (SET), funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2017-06039).Registration: Available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/6y4wr

Download Full-text

Tier 2 interventions within the RtI-model for developing students’ word decoding – a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.31234/osf.io/eu85d ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Camilla Nilvius ◽

Rickard Carlsson ◽

Linda Fälth ◽

Thomas Nordström

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

At Risk ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Tier 2 ◽

Word Decoding ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Rti Model

AbstractObjectives: This PRISMA pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if K–2 students at-risk for reading impairment benefited from tier 2 reading intervention compared to teaching as usual (TAU) on word decoding outcomes.Eligibility criteria: Adequately sized randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within the Response to Intervention (RtI) model were included. Trials targeted K–2 at-risk students compared with TAU controls, for at least 20 sessions of intervention in school with more than 30 students per group. Information sources: A database search of ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, Web of Science and Google Scholar took place, followed by hand searches of reviews and meta-analyses. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (Rob 2), R-index and funnel plots. Included studies: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis.Synthesis of results: The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges’ g = 0.31 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding more than students receiving TAU. Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect was not dependent on a single study. Description of the effect: Students at-risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading interventions as evidenced by a small effect on decoding ability. Strengths and limitations of evidence: This systematic review used the PRISMA gold standard but only four studies met inclusion criteria.Interpretation: Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can support decoding development.

Download Full-text