Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Nov 14;11(11):CD009115.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3.

Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers

Genevieve McArthur  1 , Yumi Sheehan, Nicholas A Badcock, Deanna A Francis, Hua-Chen Wang, Saskia Kohnen, Erin Banales, Thushara Anandakumar, Eva Marinus, Anne Castles
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers

Genevieve McArthur et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The reading skills of 16% of children fall below the mean range for their age, and 5% of children have significant and severe reading problems. Phonics training is one of the most common reading treatments used with poor readers, particularly children.

Objectives: To measure the effect of phonics training and explore the impact of various factors, such as training duration and training group size, that might moderate the effect of phonics training on literacy-related skills in English-speaking poor readers.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases, and three trials registers up to May 2018. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies.

Selection criteria: We included studies that used randomisation, quasi-randomisation, or minimisation to allocate participants to a phonics intervention group (phonics training only or phonics training plus one other literacy-related skill) or a control group (no training or non-literacy training). Participants were English-speaking poor readers with word reading one standard deviation below the appropriate level for their age (children, adolescents, and adults) or one grade or year below the appropriate level (children only), for no known reason. Participants had no known comorbid developmental disorder, or physical, neurological, or emotional problem.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

Main results: We included 14 studies with 923 participants in this review. Studies took place in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. Six of the 14 included studies were funded by government agencies and one was funded by a university grant. The rest were funded by charitable foundations or trusts. Each study compared phonics training alone, or in conjunction with one other reading-related skill, to either no training (i.e. treatment as usual) or alterative training (e.g. maths). Participants were English-speaking children or adolescents, of low and middle socioeconomic status, whose reading was one year, one grade, or one standard deviation below the level expected for their age or grade for no known reason. Phonics training varied between studies in intensity (up to four hours per week), duration (up to seven months), training group size (individual and small groups), and delivery (human and computer). We measured the effect of phonics training on seven primary outcomes (mixed/regular word reading accuracy, non-word reading accuracy, irregular word reading accuracy, mixed/regular word reading fluency, non-word reading fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling). We judged all studies to be at low risk of bias for most risk criteria, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.There was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' accuracy for reading real and novel words that follow the letter-sound rules (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.90; 11 studies, 701 participants), and their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; 10 studies, 682 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that phonics training probably improved English-speaking poor readers' fluency for reading words that followed the letter-sounds rules (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.72; 4 studies, 224 participants), and non-word reading fluency (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68; 3 studies, 188 participants), as well as their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.39; 4 studies, 294 participants). In addition, there was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' spelling (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.01; 3 studies, 158 participants), but only slightly improve their reading comprehension (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.62; 5 studies, 343 participants).

Authors' conclusions: Phonics training appears to be effective for improving literacy-related skills, particularly reading fluency of words and non-words, and accuracy of reading irregular words. More studies are needed to improve the precision of outcomes, including word and non-word reading accuracy, reading comprehension, spelling, letter-sound knowledge, and phonological output. More data are also needed to determine if phonics training in English-speaking poor readers is moderated by factors such as training type, intensity, duration, group size, or administrator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

GMcA:1,2 Director of the Maquarie University Reading Clinic (a non‐profit organisation), and as such, she presents workshops to professionals about the treatment of reading difficulties. The money earned by such workshops goes to the clinic and GMcA declares that she does not benefit financially from these activities. Macquarie University covered GMcA's expenses to attend and present at various national and international conferences. YS: none known. NB: none known. DF:1 clinician (treatment) at the Macquarie University Reading Clinic. HCW: Macquarie University covered her expenses to attend and present at various national and international conferences. SK:1,2 Clinical Director of the Maquarie University Reading Clinic, and as such, she designs assessments and treatments, including those with a phonics component. In her role as Clinical Director, SK provides consultancy or professional development courses (or both) to parents, clinicians, schools, clinics, and the government. The money earned by these activities goes to the Macquarie University Reading Clinic and SK does not benefit financially from these activities. Macquarie University covered SK's expenses to attend and present at various national and international conferences. Between 2009 and 2010, SK was employed as a part‐time postdoctoral researcher by MultiLit, a company which provides literacy instruction and sells literacy programs. These programs include a phonics component. SK was responsible for analysing and writing up data from students who received literacy instruction by MulitiLit. SK does not receive financial benefits from the sale of any literacy programs. EB:1,2 Clinic Co‐Ordinator of the Macquarie University Reading Clinic. TA:1,2 clinician (Assessment and Training) at the Macquarie University Reading Clinic. EM: funded by the Australian Research Council as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders; the funds support research activities in general, and not specifically for doing this review. Macquarie University covered EM's expenses to attend and present at various national and international conferences. AC:2 none known.

1Several authors on the revised version of the review (GMcA, SK, EB, TA, DF) work at the Macquarie University Reading Clinic, where they use phonics training for some poor readers (i.e. those with the appropriate profile), since the evidence suggests that this can be effective for some types of reading problems. 2Five review authors (GMcA, SK, AC, EB, TA) were involved in the conduct of two studies, which were included in this review update (McArthur 2015a; McArthur 2015b). None of these review authors assessed the eligibility of these studies for inclusion, extract data from these studies, or conducted the 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments.

Funds from the Australian Research Council, National Health Medical Research Council, Macquarie University Reading Clinic, and Macquarie University paid the wages of various authors during the development of the original review. These funds were provided for research activities in general, and not specifically for doing this review. For this review update, only HCW and EM received funds from ARC to support their wage, whereas all other review authors were supported by the Department of Cognitive Science at Macquarie University.

Figures

1
1
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
2
2
Study flow diagram.
3
3
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Treatment versus control random‐effects model, outcome: 1.1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 7 Spelling.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 9 Phonological output.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
3.5
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
3.6
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
3.7
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 7 Spelling.
3.8
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
3.9
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 9 Phonological output.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
5.3
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
5.4
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
5.5
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
5.6
5.6. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
5.7
5.7. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 7 Spelling.
5.8
5.8. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
5.9
5.9. Analysis
Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 9 Phonological output.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Barker 1995 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Barker TA, Torgese JK. An evaluation of computer‐assisted instruction in phonological awareness with below average readers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 1995;13(1):89‐103. [DOI: 10.2190/TH3M-BTP7-JEJ5-JFNJ] - DOI
Blythe 2006 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Blythe J. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 4 October 2011.
    1. Blythe JM. Computer‐based phonological skills training for primary students with mild to moderate dyslexia – a pilot study. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology 2006;6:39‐49. [EJ815611]
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: J Blythe 14 September 2011.
Chen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Chen V. Cochrane review – additional information [pers comm]. Email to: D Francis 11 July 2017.
    1. Chen V, Savage RS. Corrigendum to the 'Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme‐to‐phonemes improves reading and motivation in at‐risk readers' Journal of Research in Reading, 2014;37(2): 196‐214. Journal of Research in Reading 2016;39(1):126‐31. [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12068] - DOI
    1. Chen V, Savage RS. Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme‐to‐phonemes improves reading and motivation in at‐risk readers. Journal of Research in Reading 2014;37(2):196‐214. [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12022] - DOI
Ford 2009 {unpublished data only}
    1. Ford C. The effect of the backward‐chaining method of decoding with computer‐assisted instruction on the reading skills of struggling adolescent readers [Doctoral thesis]. DeKalb (IL): Northern Illinois University, 2009.
Hurford 1994 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Hurford D. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 4 February 2012.
    1. Hurford DP, Johnston M, Nepote P, Hampton S, Moore S, Neal J, et al. Early identification and remediation of phonological‐processing deficits in first‐grade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1994;27(10):647‐59. [DOI: 10.1177/002221949402701005; PUBMED: 7844481 ] - DOI - PubMed
Hurry 2007 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: D Hurry 14 September 2011.
    1. Hurry J. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 16 February 2012.
    1. Hurry J. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 16 January 2012.
    1. Hurry J. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 17 January 2012.
    1. Hurry J, Sylva K. Long‐term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading 2007;30(3):227‐48. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00338.x] - DOI
Levy 1997 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: Levy B 26 September 2011.
    1. Levy BA, Lysynchuk L. Beginning word recognition: benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading 1997;1(4):359‐87. [DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0104_4] - DOI
Levy 1999 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Levy BA. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 4 October 2011.
    1. Levy BA, Bourassa DC, Horn C. Fast and slow namers: benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1999;73(2):115‐38. [DOI: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2497] - DOI - PubMed
Lovett 1990 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Frijters J. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 4 October 2011.
    1. Lovett M, Warren‐Chaplin PM, Ransby MJ, Borden SL. Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: treatment and transfer effect. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990;82(4):769‐80. [DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.82.4.769] - DOI
Lovett 2000 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: J Frijters 4 October 2011.
    1. Lovett MW, Borden SL, DeLuca T, Lacerenza L, Benson NJ, Brackstone D. Treating the core deficits of developmental dyslexia: evidence of transfer of learning after phonologically‐ and strategy‐based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology 1994;30(6):805‐22. [DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.805] - DOI
    1. Lovett MW, Lacerenza L, Borden SL, Frijters JC, Steinbach KA, Palma M. Components of effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities: combining phonological and strategy‐based instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000;92(2):263‐83. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.263] - DOI
    1. Lovett MW, Steinbach KA. The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: does the benefit decrease for older children?. Learning Disability Quarterly 1997;20(3):189‐210. [DOI: 10.2307/1511308] - DOI
    1. Lovett MW, Steinbach KA, Frijters JC. Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: a double‐deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2000;33(4):334‐58. [DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300406; PUBMED: 15493096] - DOI - PubMed
McArthur 2015a {published data only}
    1. McArthur G (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia). [pers comm]. Conversation with: HC Wang (Cochrane Review Team, Sydney, Australia) 15 July 2017.
    1. McArthur G, Castles A, Kohnen S, Larsen L, Jones K, Anandakumar T, et al. Sight word and phonics training in children with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2015;48(4):391‐407. [DOI: 10.1177/0022219413504996; PUBMED: 24085229] - DOI - PubMed
McArthur 2015b {published data only}
    1. McArthur G (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia). [pers comm]. Conversation with: HC Wang (Cochrane Review Team, Sydney, Australia) 15 July 2017.
    1. McArthur G, Kohnen S, Jones K, Eve P, Banales E, Larsen L, et al. Replicability of sight word training and phonics training in poor readers: a randomised controlled trial. PeerJ 2015;3:e922. [DOI: 10.7717/peerj.922; PMC4435451; PUBMED: 26019992] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Savage 2003 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: R Savage 11 February 2012.
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: R Savage 24 January 2012.
    1. Savage R. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 30 November 2011.
    1. Savage R, Carless S, Stuart M. The effects of rime‐ and phoneme‐based teaching delivered by learning support assistants. Journal of Research in Reading 2003;26(3):211‐33. [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.00199] - DOI
Savage 2005 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: R Savage 11 February 2012.
    1. Eve P. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: R Savage 24 January 2012.
    1. Savage R. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 11 February 2012.
    1. Savage R. Cochrane review data request [pers comm]. Email to: P Eve 30 November 2011.
    1. Savage R, Carless S. Learning support assistants can deliver effective reading interventions for 'at‐risk' children. Educational Research 2005;47(1):45‐61. [DOI: 10.1080/0013188042000337550] - DOI

References to studies excluded from this review

Aboud 2018 {published data only}
    1. Aboud KS, Barquero LA, Cutting LE. Prefrontal mediation of the reading network predicts intervention response in dyslexia. Cortex 2018;101:96‐106. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.009; PMC5869156; PUBMED: 29459284] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Alexander 1991 {published data only}
    1. Alexander AW, Andersen HG, Heilman PC, Voeller KK, Torgesen JK. Phonological awareness training and remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia 1991;41(1):193‐206. [DOI: 10.1007/BF02648086; PUBMED: 24233765] - DOI - PubMed
Arnold 2016 {published data only}
    1. Arnold SS, Barton B, McArthur G, North KN, Payne JM. Phonics training improves reading in children with neurofibromatosis type 1: a prospective intervention trial. Journal of Pediatrics 2016;177:219‐26.e2. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.06.037; PUBMED: 27480199] - DOI - PubMed
Berninger 2013 {published data only}
    1. Berninger VW, Lee YL, Abbott RD, Breznitz Z. Teaching children with dyslexia to spell in a reading‐writers' workshop. Annals of Dyslexia 2013;63(1):1‐24. [DOI: 10.1007/s11881-011-0054-0; PUBMED: 21845501] - DOI - PubMed
Bhide 2013 {published data only}
    1. Bhide A, Power A, Goswami U. A rhythmic musical intervention for poor readers: a comparison of efficacy with a letter‐based intervention. Mind, Brain, and Education 2013;7(2):113‐23. [DOI: 10.1111/mbe.12016] - DOI
Christodoulou 2017 {published data only}
    1. Christodoulou JA, Cyr A, Murtagh J, Chang P, Lin J, Guarino AJ, et al. Impact of intensive summer reading intervention for children with reading disabilities and difficulties in early elementary school. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2017;50(2):115‐27. [DOI: 10.1177/0022219415617163; PUBMED: 26712799] - DOI - PubMed
Dubois 2014 {published data only}
    1. Dubois MR, Volpe RJ, Hemphill EM. A randomized trial of a computer‐assisted tutoring program targeting letter‐sound expression. School Psychology Review 2014;43(2):210‐21. [ERIC Number: EJ1142183]
Foorman 1997 {published data only}
    1. Foorman BR, Francis DJ, Winikates D, Mehta P, Schatschneider C, Fletcher JM. Early interventions for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading 1997;1(3):255‐76. [DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_5] - DOI
Foorman 1998 {published data only}
    1. Foorman BR, Francis DJ, Fletcher JM, Schatschneider C, Mehta P. The role of instruction in learning to read: preventing reading failure in at‐risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998;90(1):37‐55. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37] - DOI
Gillon 1997 {published data only}
    1. Gillon G, Dodd B. Enhancing the phonological processing skills of children with specific reading disability. European Journal of Disorders of Communication 1997;32(2):67‐90. [PUBMED: 9279428] - PubMed
Gillon 2000 {published data only}
    1. Gillon GT. The efficacy of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 2000;31(2):126‐41. [DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461.3102.126; PUBMED: 27764385] - DOI - PubMed
Gillon 2002 {published data only}
    1. Gillon GT. Follow‐up study investigating with benefits of phonological awareness intervention for children with spoken language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 2002;37(4):381‐400. [DOI: 10.1080/1368282021000007776; PUBMED: 12396840] - DOI - PubMed
Goldstein 2017 {published data only}
    1. Goldstein H, Olszewski A, Haring C, Greenwood CR, McCune L, Carta J, et al. Efficacy of a supplemental phonemic awareness curriculum to instruct preschoolers with delays in early literacy development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2017;60(1):89‐103. [DOI: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0451] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Gorard 2015 {published data only}
    1. Gorard S, Siddiqui N, See BH. Fresh start: evaluation report and executive summary. v1.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Fresh_Start_(Final).pdf (accessed prior to 11 September 2018).
Hatcher 1994 {published data only}
    1. Hatcher PJ, Hulme C, Ellis AW. Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: the phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development 1994;65(1):41‐57. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00733.x] - DOI
Hatcher 2006 {published data only}
    1. Hatcher PJ, Goetz K, Snowling MJ, Hulme C, Gibbs S, Smith G. Evidence for the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2006;76(Pt 2):351‐67. [DOI: 10.1348/000709905X39170; PUBMED: 16719968] - DOI - PubMed
Jeffes 2016 {published data only}
    1. Jeffes B. Raising the reading skills of secondary‐age students with severe and persistent reading difficulties: evaluation of the efficacy and implementation of a phonics‐based intervention programme. Educational Psychology in Practice 2016;32(1):73‐84. [DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2015.1111198] - DOI
King 2015 {published data only}
    1. King B, Kasim A. Rapid phonics: evaluation report and executive summary. v1.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Rapid_Phonics_(Final)... (accessed prior to 11 September 2018).
Lovett 1988 {published data only}
    1. Lovett MW, Ransby MJ, Barron RW. Treatment, subtype, and word type effects in dyslexic children's response to remediation. Brain and Language 1988;34(2):328‐49. [PUBMED: 3401697] - PubMed
Lovett 1989 {published data only}
    1. Lovett MW, Ransby MJ, Hardwick N, Johns MS, Donaldson SA. Can dyslexia be treated? Treatment‐specific and generalized treatment effects in dyslexic children's response to remediation. Brain and Language 1989;37(1):90‐121. [PUBMED: 2752277] - PubMed
Lovett 1994 {published data only}
    1. Lovett MW, Barron RW, Forbes JE, Cuksts B, Steinbach KA. Computer speech‐based training of literacy skills in neurologically impaired children: a controlled evaluation. Brain and Language 1994;47(1):117‐54. [DOI: 10.1006/brln.1994.1045; PUBMED: 7922474] - DOI - PubMed
Lovett 2012 {published data only}
    1. Lovett MW, Lacerenza L, Palma M, Frijters JC. Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2012;45(2):151‐69. [DOI: 10.1177/0022219410371678; PUBMED: 22183192] - DOI - PubMed
Merrell 2015 {published data only}
    1. Merrell C, Kasim A. Butterfly phonics: evaluation report and executive summary. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581118.pdf (accessed prior to 11 September 2018).
Messer 2018 {published data only}
    1. Messer D, Nash G. An evaluation of the effectiveness of a computer‐assisted reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading 2018;41(1):140‐58. [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12107] - DOI
Metsala 2017 {published data only}
    1. Metsala JL, David MD, Brown S. An examination of reading skills and reading outcomes for youth involved in a crime prevention program. Reading & Writing Quarterly 2017;33(6):549‐62. [DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2016.1268081] - DOI
Munro 2017 {published data only}
    1. Munro J. Who benefits from which reading intervention in the primary years? Match the intervention with the reading profile. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 2017;22(2):133‐51. [DOI: 10.1080/19404158.2017.1379027] - DOI
Olson 1992 {published data only}
    1. Olson RK, Wise BW. Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback: an overview of the Colorado Remediation Project. Reading and Writing 1992;4(2):107‐44. [DOI: 10.1007/BF01027488] - DOI
Olson 1997 {published data only}
    1. Olson RK, Wise B, Ring J, Johnson M. Computer‐based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: effects on the posttraining development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading 1997;1(3):235‐53. [DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_4] - DOI
Rashotte 2001 {published data only}
    1. Rashotte CA, MacPhee K, Torgesen JK. The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly 2001;24(2):119‐34. [DOI: 10.2307/1511068] - DOI
Savage 2018 {published data only}
    1. Savage R, Georgiou G, Parrila R, Maiorino K. Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set‐for‐variability aid at‐risk learners. Scientific Studies of Reading 2018;22(3):225‐47. [DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753] - DOI
Schaars 2017 {published data only}
    1. Schaars MM, Segers E, Verhoeven L. Word decoding development during phonics instruction in children at risk for dyslexia. Dyslexia 2017;23(2):141‐60. [DOI: 10.1002/dys.1556; PMC6084288; PUBMED: 28470910] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Schlesinger 2017 {published data only}
    1. Schlesinger NW, Gray S. The impact of multisensory instruction on learning letter names and sounds, word reading, and spelling. Annals of Dyslexia 2017;67(3):219‐58. [DOI: 10.1007/s11881-017-0140-z; PUBMED: 28255950] - DOI - PubMed
Seiler 2018 {published data only}
    1. Seiler A, Leitão S, Blosfelds M. WordDriver‐1: evaluating the efficacy of an app‐supported decoding intervention for children with reading impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 2018 Apr 24 [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12388; PUBMED: 29691983] - DOI - PubMed
Steacy 2016 {published data only}
    1. Steacy LM, Elleman AM, Lovett MW, Compton DL. Exploring differential effects across two decoding treatments on item‐level transfer in children with significant word reading difficulties: a new approach for testing intervention elements. Scientific Studies of Reading 2016;20(4):283‐95. [DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2016.1178267; NIHMSID: NIHMS804588; PMC5460658; PUBMED: 28596701] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Storey 2017 {published data only}
    1. Storey C, McDowell C, Leslie JC. Evaluating the efficacy of the Headsprout© reading program with children who have spent time in care. Behavioral Interventions 2017;32(3):285‐93. [DOI: 10.1002/bin.1476] - DOI
Torgesen 1997 {published data only}
    1. Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA. Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading 1997;1(3):217‐34. [DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_3] - DOI
Torgesen 1999a {published data only}
    1. Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Rose E, Lindamood P, Conway T, et al. Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999;91(4):579‐93. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.579] - DOI
Torgesen 2001 {published data only}
    1. Torgesen JK, Alexander AW, Wagner RK, Rashotte CA, Voeller KK, Conway T. Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: immediate and long‐term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2001;34(1):33‐58, 78. [DOI: 10.1177/002221940103400104; PUBMED: 15497271] - DOI - PubMed
Torgesen 2006 {published data only}
    1. Torgesen J, Myers D, Schirm A, Stuart E, Vartivarian S, Mansfield W, et al. Closing the reading gap: first year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Final report. Washington (DC): Corporation for the Advancement of Policy Evaluation; 2006 February. Reference No.: 8970‐400.
Van Gorp 2017 {published data only}
    1. Gorp K, Segers E, Verhoeven L. The role of feedback and differences between good and poor decoders in a repeated word reading paradigm in first grade. Annals of Dyslexia 2017;67(1):1‐25. [DOI: 10.1007/s11881-016-0129-z; PMC5346118; PUBMED: 27068186] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vellutino 1986 {published data only}
    1. Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM. Experimental evidence for the effects of instructional bias on word identification. Exceptional Children 1986;53(2):145‐55. [PUBMED: 3770059] - PubMed
Vellutino 1987 {published data only}
    1. Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM. Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly 1987;33(3):321‐63. [EJ361477]
Vellutino 1996 {published data only}
    1. Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Sipay ER, Small SG, Pratt A, Chen R, et al. Cognitive profiles of difficult‐to‐remediate and readily remediated poor readers: early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology 1996;88(4):601‐38. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601] - DOI
Wheldall 2017 {published data only}
    1. Wheldall K, Wheldall R, Madelaine A, Reynolds M, Arakelian S. Further evidence for the efficacy of an evidence‐based, small group, literacy intervention program for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 2017;22(1):3‐13. [DOI: 10.1080/19404158.2017.1287102] - DOI
Wise 1995 {published data only}
    1. Wise BW, Olson RK. Computer‐based phonological awareness and reading‐instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 1995;45(1):97‐122. [DOI: 10.1007/BF02648214; PUBMED: 24234190 ] - DOI - PubMed
Wise 1997 {published data only}
    1. Wise B, Ring J, Sessions L, Olson RK. Phonological awareness with and without articulation: a preliminary study. Learning Disability Quarterly 1997;20(3):211‐25. [DOI: 10.2307/1511309] - DOI
Wise 1999 {published data only}
    1. Wise BW, Ring J, Olson RK. Training phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1999;72(4):271‐304. [DOI: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2490; PUBMED: 10074381] - DOI - PubMed
Wise 2000 {published data only}
    1. Wise BW, Ring J, Olson RK. Individual differences in gains from computer‐assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2000;77(3):197‐235. [DOI: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2559; PUBMED: 11023657] - DOI - PubMed

Additional references

Alexander‐Passe 2015
    1. Alexander‐Passe N. Dyslexia: investigating self‐harm and suicidal thoughts/attempts as a coping strategy. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy 2015;5(6):1. [DOI: 10.4172/2161-0487.1000224] - DOI
Blachman 2000
    1. Blachman BA. Phonological awareness. In: Kamil ML, Mosenthal PB, Pearson PD, Barr R editor(s). Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. III, Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000:483‐502.
Bus 1999
    1. Bus A, IJzendoorn MH. Phonological awareness and early reading: a meta‐analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999;91(3):403‐14. [DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.91.3.403] - DOI
Carroll 2006
    1. Carroll JM, Iles JE. An assessment of anxiety levels in dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2006;76(Pt 3):651‐62. [DOI: 10.1348/000709905X66233; PUBMED: 16953967] - DOI - PubMed
Castles 1993
    1. Castles A, Coltheart M. Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition 1993;47(2):149‐80. [PUBMED: 8324999] - PubMed
Chall 1967
    1. Chall JS. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York (NY): McGraw‐Hill, 1967.
Chen 2016
    1. Chen V, Savage RS. Corrigendum to the 'Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme‐to‐phonemes improves reading and motivation in at‐risk readers' Journal of Research in Reading, 2014;37(2): 196–214. Journal of Research in Reading 2016;39(1):126‐31. [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12068] - DOI
Clay 1985
    1. Clay MM. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties: A Diagnostic Survey with Recovery Procedures. 3. Auckland (NZ): Heinemann, 1985.
Cohen 1988
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
Coltheart 2001
    1. Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R, Ziegler J. DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review 2001;108(1):204‐56. [PUBMED: 11212628] - PubMed
Daniel 2006
    1. Daniel SS, Walsh AK, Goldston DB, Arnold EM, Reboussin BA, Wood FB. Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2006;39(6):507‐14. [DOI: 10.1177/00222194060390060301; PUBMED: 17165618] - DOI - PubMed
Dawson 2000
    1. Dawson L, Venn ML, Gunter PL. The effects of teacher versus computer reading models. Behavioral Disorders 2000;25(2):105‐13. [EJ603392]
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Ehri 2001
    1. Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, Willows DM. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: evidence from the national reading panel's meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research 2001;71(3):393‐447. [DOI: 10.3102/00346543071003393] - DOI
Ehri 2014
    1. Ehri LC. Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading 2014;18(1):5‐21. [DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356] - DOI
Elbaum 2000
    1. Elbaum B, Vaughn S, Hughs MT, Moody SW. How effective are one‐on‐one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta‐analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Research 2000;92(4):605‐19. [EJ621002]
Elliot 1983
    1. Elliot CD. British Ability Scales. Windsor (UK): NFER‐Nelson, 1983.
Fletcher 2005
    1. Fletcher JM, Denton C, Francis DJ. Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2005;38(6):545‐52. [DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380061101; 16392697 ] - DOI - PubMed
Galushka 2014
    1. Galushka K, Ise E, Krick K, Schulte‐Körne G. Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. PloS One 2014;9(2):e89900. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089900; 24587110; PMC3935956] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Goldman 1974
    1. Goldman R, Fristoe M, Woodcook RW. G‐F‐W Diagnostic Auditory Discrimination Test. Circle Pines (MN): American Guidance Service, 1974.
Harm 1999
    1. Harm M, Seidenberg M. Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review 1999;106:491‐528. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hurford 1993
    1. Hurford DP, Darrow LJ, Edwards TL, Howerton CJ, Mote CR, Schauf JD, et al. An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children during their first‐grade year. Journal of Learning Disabilities 1993;26(3):167‐77. [DOI: 10.1177/002221949302600304] - DOI - PubMed
Karlson 2009
    1. Karlson CW, Rapoff MA. Attrition in randomized controlled trials for pediatric chronic conditions. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2009;34(7):782‐93. [DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn122; PUBMED: 19064607] - DOI - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheinmer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
MacGinitie 2002
    1. MacGinitie WH, MacGinitie RK, Maria K, Dreyer LG, Hughes KE. Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests, Forms S & T. 4th Edition. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
Maughan 2003
    1. Maughan B, Rowe R, Loeber R, Stouthamer‐Loeber M. Reading problems and depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2003;31(2):219‐29. [PUBMED: 12735404] - PubMed
McArthur 2013
    1. McArthur GM, Jones K, Anandakumar T, Larsen L, Castles A, Coltheart M. A Test of Everyday Reading Comprehension (TERC). Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 2013;18(1):35‐85. [DOI: 10.1080/19404158.2013.779588] - DOI
McArthur 2016
    1. McArthur G, Castles A, Kohnen S, Banales E. Low self‐concept in poor readers: prevalence, heterogeneity, and risk. PeerJ 2016;4:e2669. [DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2669; PMC5111895; PUBMED: 27867764] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Neale 1988
    1. Neale MD. Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Revised. 3rd Edition. Hawthorn (VI): ACER Press, 1988.
Perry 2007
    1. Perry C, Ziegler JC, Zorzi M. Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review 2007;114(2):273‐315. [DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273; PUBMED: 17500628] - DOI - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Ryan 2016
    1. Ryan R, Santesso N, Hill S. Preparing summary of findings (SoF) tables. figshare.com/articles/Summary_of_findings_tables/6818891 (accessed prior to 11 September 2018).
Saghaei 2011
    1. Saghaei M, Saghaei S. Implementation of an open‐source customizable minimization program for allocation of patients to parallel groups in clinical trials. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering 2011;4:734‐9. [DOI: 10.4236/jbise.2011.411090] - DOI
Schünemann 2011a
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Schünemann 2011b
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, et al. Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Share 1995
    1. Share D. Phonological recoding and self‐teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 1995;55(2):151‐218; 219‐26. [PUBMED: 7789090] - PubMed
Shaywitz 1992
    1. Shaywitz SE, Escobar MD, Shaywitz BA, Fletcher JM, Makuch R. Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;326(3):145‐50. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199201163260301; PUBMED: 1727544] - DOI - PubMed
Shaywitz 2001
    1. Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Focus on Basics 2001;5(A):11‐5.
Shultz 2010
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010;152(11):726‐32. [DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232] - DOI - PubMed
Stahl 1994
    1. Stahl SA, Murray BA. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 1994;86(2):221‐34. [DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.221] - DOI
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Suggate 2010
    1. Suggate SP. Why what we teach depends on when: grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology 2010;46(6):1556‐79. [DOI: 10.1037/a0020612; PUBMED: 20873927] - DOI - PubMed
Swanson 1999
    1. Swanson HL, Hoskyn M, Lee C. Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities. New York (NY): Guildford Press, 1999.
Therrien 2004
    1. Therrien WJ. Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: a meta‐analysis. Remedial and Special Education 2004;25(4):252‐61. [EJ695617]
Torgesen 1999b
    1. Torgesen JK, Rashotte CA, Wagner RK. Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). Austin (TX): Pro‐Ed, 1999.
Torgesen 2010
    1. Torgesen JK, Wagner RK, Rachotte CA, Herron J, Lindamood P. Computer‐assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia 2010;60(1):40‐56. [DOI: 10.1007/s11881-009-0032-y; PMC2888606 ; PUBMED: 20052566] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vousden 2008
    1. Vousden JI. Units of English spelling‐to‐sound mapping: a rational approach to reading instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008;22(2):247‐72. [DOI: 10.1002/acp.1371] - DOI
Wechsler 2001
    1. Wechsler D. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio (TX): Psychological Corporation, 2001.
Weekes 1997
    1. Weekes BS. Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 1997;50(2):439‐56. [DOI: 10.1080/713755710] - DOI
Williams 2010
    1. Williams KT. Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation: Level 1, Version A. Melbourne (VI): Pearson, 2010.
Woodcock 1987
    1. Woodcock RW. Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests – Revised. Circle Pines (MN): American Guidance Service, 1987.
Woodcock 2001
    1. Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N. Woodcock‐Johnson III. 3rd Edition. Itasca (IL): Riverside Publishing, 2001.

References to other published versions of this review

McArthur 2011
    1. McArthur G, Castles A, Kohnen S, Larsen L, Jones K, Anandakumar T, et al. Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115] - DOI - PubMed
McArthur 2012
    1. McArthur G, Eve PM, Jones K, Banales E, Kohnen S, Anandakumar T, et al. Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub2; PUBMED: 23235670] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources