Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 3-12 With Significant Word Reading Difficulties.

Most students with reading difficulties struggle to read words. We examined intervention effects for students with significant word reading difficulties (SWRD; standard score of 80 on at least one pretest measure of word reading), which includes individuals with or at risk for dyslexia. We investigated: (a) What are the effects of reading interventions for students in grades 3-12 with SWRD? and (b) What intervention features (i.e., instructional components and elements of dosage) are related to improved reading outcomes for the target population? A meta-analysis of 22 studies and 208 effect sizes revealed a statistically significant, positive, mean effect (g = 0.14, standard error [SE] = 0.04, p = .01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.04, 0.23]) of interventions for the target population. Subset analyses revealed positive, statistically significant intervention effects on measures of pseudoword reading (g = 0.38, SE = 0.07, p = .0003, 95% CI [0.21, 0.54]) and pseudoword reading fluency (g = 0.29, SE = 0.09, p = .010, 95% CI [0.09, 0.49]). Moderator analyses yielded statistically significant, positive effects associated with increased total hours of intervention, ß = 0.003, SE = 0.0009, t(8.31) = 3.58, p = .007. Overall, findings indicate a need for interventions that improve generalized real-world reading for the target population.

The Relative Effects of Instruction Linking Word Reading and Word Meaning Compared to Word Reading Instruction Alone on the Accuracy, Fluency, and Word Meaning Knowledge of 4th-5th Grade Students With Dyslexia.

This within-subjects experimental study investigated the relative effects of word reading and word meaning instruction (WR+WM) compared to word-reading instruction alone (WR) on the accuracy, fluency, and word meaning knowledge of 4th-5th graders with dyslexia. We matched word lists on syllables, phonemes, frequency, number of definitions, and concreteness. We assigned half the words to WR and half to WR+WM. Word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, and word meaning knowledge were measured at pretest, immediately following each intervention session, and at posttest, administered immediately following the 12, 45-minute, daily instructional sessions. Compared to WR instruction alone, WR+WM significantly improved accuracy (d = 0.65), fluency (d = 0.43), and word meaning knowledge (d = 1.92) immediately following intervention, and significantly improved accuracy (d = 0.74), fluency (d = 0.84), and word meaning knowledge (d = 1.03) at posttest. Findings support the premise that word meaning knowledge facilitates accurate and fluent word reading, and that instruction explicitly integrating word reading and word meaning may be an effective support for upper elementary students with dyslexia.

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] = 0.22; p = .40), 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 = .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.