|
|
References
Meets WWC evidence standards
Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., & Herron, J. (2003). Summary of outcomes from first grade study with Read, Write and Type and Auditory Discrimination in Depth instruction and software with at-risk children (FCRR Tech. Rep. No. 2). Retrieved from Florida Center for Reading Research website: http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/RWTfullrept.pdf.
Studies that fall outside the Beginning Reading protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84. The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Adair, J., Nadeau, S., Conway, T., Gonzalez-Rothi, L., Heilman, P., Green, I., et al. (2000). Alterations in the functional anatomy of reading induced by rehabilitation of an alexic patient. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, 13(4), 303–311. This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Alexander, A., Anderson, H., Heilman, P., Voeller, K., & Torgesen, J. (1991). Phonological awareness training and the remediation of analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193–206. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Conway, T., Heilman, P., Gonzalez-Rothi, L., Alexander, A., Adair, J., Crosson, B., & Heilman, K. (1998). Treatment of a case of phonological alexia with agraphia using the Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD) program. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 608–620. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Howard, M. P. (1986). Effects of pre-reading training in auditory conceptualization on subsequent reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(03), 847A. (UMI No. 8612677) (Study: Arco, Indiana, and Santa Maria, California) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Howard, M. P. (1986). Effects of pre-reading training in auditory conceptualization on subsequent reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(03), 847A. (UMI No. 8612677) (Study: Arco, Indiana, kindergarten) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Howard, M. P. (1986). Effects of pre-reading training in auditory conceptualization on subsequent reading achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(03), 847A. (UMI No. 8612677) (Study: Arco, Indiana, first-grade longitudinal) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Kennedy, K., & Backman, J. (1993). Effectiveness of the Lindamood Auditory Discrimination in Depth program with students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(4), 253–259. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Leask, A. (2007). The effect of phonological awareness intervention on non-word spelling ability in school-aged children: An analysis of qualitative change. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 9(1), 1–16. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2003). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Beginning reading submissions. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Intervention in kindergarten through 2nd grade) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2003). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Beginning reading submissions. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Kindergarten results from school project in Oregon) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2003). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Beginning reading submissions. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Kindergarten through 3rd grade results from learning centers across the United States) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2003). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Beginning reading submissions. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Kindergarten through 3rd grade results from school project in Colorado) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2004). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Interventions for beginning reading evidence report–Report 1, Book I of II. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: K–3 Lindamood-Bell focus students 2002 summary) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2004). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Interventions for beginning reading evidence report–Report 1, Book I of II. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Kindergarten students in Oregon 2001–02) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2004). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Interventions for beginning reading evidence report–Report 1, Book I of II. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Pueblo, Colorado, 2001–02 summary) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2004). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Interventions for beginning reading evidence report–Report 1, Book I of II. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Longitudinal Florida study summary) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (2004). Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes: Interventions for beginning reading evidence report–Report 1, Book I of II. (Available from the Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes, 416 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401) (Study: Second grade students in Idaho) This study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. 2004 clinical statistics. Retrieved from http://www.lindamoodbell.com/downloads/pdf/research/2004%20Clinical%20Stats.pdf The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. 2005 clinical statistics. Retrieved from http://www.lindamoodbell.com/downloads/pdf/research/clinical%20stats%202005.pdf The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. 2006 learning centers’ results. Retrieved from http://www.lindamoodbell.com /downloads/pdf/research/2006%20Center%20results.pdf The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Matson, A. E. (2005). Central auditory processing: A current literature review and summary of interviews with researchers on controversial issues related to auditory processing disorders. St. Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine, Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
McBride, N. (2005). The effectiveness of second shot and/or Lindamood-Bell on reading achievement of elementary students. University of Nevada, Reno: Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology. (UMI No. 3209120) The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
McGuinness, C., McGuinness, D., & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: Evidence for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 830–852. The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.
Nelson, R. L., & Damico, J. S. (2006). Qualitative research in literacy acquisition: A framework for investigating reading in children with language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20(7–8), 631–639. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Olson, R. K., & Wise, B. (2006). Computer-based remediation for reading and related phonological disabilities. In Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, Ronald D. Kiefer, and David Rein-king, (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 57–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Olson, R. K., Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the post-training development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 235–253. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Pokorni, J. L., Worthington, C. K., & Jamison, P. J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS®. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 147–157. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 137–154. The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Simos, P., Fletcher, J., Bergman, E., Breier, J., Foorman, B., Castillo, E., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1212. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Research Report No. RR711. University of Sheffield, UK: Department for Education Skills Publications. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, P. A., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 579–593. The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Truch, S. (1994). Stimulating basic reading processes using Auditory Discrimination in Depth. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 60–80. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 197–235. The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
