Wolff, U. (2011)

7172019 Wolff U (2011)

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullwolff-u-2011 117

Effects of a Randomised ReadingIntervention Study An Applicationof Structural Equation ModellingUlrika Wolff

Department of Education University of Gothenburg Sweden

An intensive phonics-based intervention program for nine-year-old Swedish pupils with

reading dif 1047297culties was performed Pupils (N = 112) were randomly assigned to either anintervention or a control group The training was tailored to the Swedish transparent orthography and designed for one-to-one-tutoring during twelve weeks Previously readingspeed has been shown to be hard to remediate and one important purpose was to improvereading speed by explicit training The intervention group showed improvements immedi-ately after intervention in spelling reading comprehension reading speed and phonemeawareness There were also signi1047297cant indirect effects from intervention to all variablesone year later Reading comprehension at immediate post-test predicted spelling one yearlater and phoneme awareness at post-test predicted both spelling and reading comprehen-sion one year later The results suggest the importance of a multi-component intervention

even in transparent orthographies which includes phonics combined with comprehensionstrategies and 1047298uency training Copyright copy 2011 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd

Keywords dyslexia intervention phonological awareness reading 1047298uency

About 5 of all children fail to acquire adequate literacy skills because of impaired worddecoding (Ramus 2004) Inaccurate and slow word decoding may lead to poor readingcomprehension even though language comprehension is unimpaired This in turn maylead to failure in parts of the curriculum beyond reading and writing To fail in areas like

reading and writing where most children do well may also lead to low self-esteem (Taube1987) A vicious circle can then develop when the low self-esteem may obstruct earlyreading development This vicious circle sometimes called the Matthew effect in reading(Stanovich 1986) can be hard to break Worse problems result in greater distress forthe individual and as problems get more dif 1047297cult and costly to address they may involvelarge economical costs for society Therefore it is important to take action to prevent children from slipping into this downward cycle as early as possible

Reading InterventionIt has been known for some decades that it is possible to prevent reading dif 1047297culties bystructured phonological awareness training in preschool (see for example Lundberg

Correspondence to Ulrika Wolff Department of Education University of Gothenburg Box 300 Gothenburg411 19 Sweden E-mail ulrikawolffpedguse

Copyright copy 2011 John Wiley amp Sons Ltd DYSLEXIA 17 295ndash 311 (2011)

DYSLEXIAPublished online 27 September 2011 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrarycom) DOI 101002dys438

7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Frost amp Petersen 1988 Snow Burns amp Grif 1047297n 1998) Preventive intervention has alsobeen shown to be more ef 1047297cient than remedial intervention (Torgesen amp Hudson 2006Tunmer 2008) However despite this knowledge there are pupils who will be in need of remedial instruction at older ages either because they did not get the right kind of interven-

tion or because of the severity of their problems The current study concerns nine-year-oldSwedish pupils who were identi1047297ed in a screening procedure as being signi1047297cantly behind theirpeers despite two years of formal literacy teaching They were in third grade as compulsoryschool starts at the age of seven in Sweden

Most researchers agree that one crucial component in reading intervention is thedevelopment of phonemic awareness and that this is most ef 1047297cient when the correspondencebetween phonemes and graphemes is made explicit (see eg Adams 1990 Hoslashien amp Lundberg2000 Rack 2004 Snowling 2000) In a meta-analysis conducted by the National Reading Panel(2000) explicit instruction in phonemic awareness phonics 1047298uency construction of meaningvocabulary and reading comprehension strategies were found to be signi1047297cant elements of

effective reading instruction However even with good instruction a signi1047297cant number of children will require instructional interventions beyond the capacity of the regular classroomteacher (Torgesen 2000 Torgesen et al 2001) It is argued that the same components of instruction are needed but that they have to be even more intensive more explicit morecomprehensible and that they need to be carried out in small groups or in one-to-onetutoring (Foorman amp Torgesen 2001) Typically children placed in special education do not fall further behind but neither do they close the gap in reading to their peers (Torgesen2002) There is some evidence that more intensive intervention than is usually carried out in schools is far more ef 1047297cient even over a shorter period than a few hours of remedialinstruction a week over a longer period of time (Torgesen 2002) Hatcher et al (2006)

demonstrated that a group of reading delayed children after ten weeks of intense interventionmade progress in reading comparable to another group of reading delayed children whoreceived 20 weeks of the same kind of intervention

Torgesen et al (2001) conducted an intervention study including 60 children betweeneight and ten years old who had not acquired adequate word reading skills despite instructionin the regular classroom and in special education At the start of the intervention the childrenperformed at least 15 SD below the mean on two word reading tests They received two50-minute sessions per day for eight weeks (675 hours) carried out with two different methods both of which involved phonemic awareness phonemic decoding and sight word recognition skills The pupils showed powerful improvements in generalizedreading skills during the intervention period (Torgesen et al 2001) Even in thefollow-up period two years after intervention the pupils made progress and continuedto close the gap performing as a group in the lower end of the normal range of abilityin word reading accuracy and reading comprehension About 40 of the pupils performedat the average in these areas within one year and were no longer in need of special education(Torgesen et al 2001)

Some researchers suggest that reading dif 1047297culties like dyslexia manifest themselves indifferent ways depending on orthography (eg Frith Wimmer amp Landerl 1998) In opaque(inconsistent) orthographies more errors are made than in transparent (consistent)

orthographies whereas poor reading in transparent orthographies is characterized byslow reading and few errors So far most reading intervention studies have been carriedout with English-speaking children with focus on word reading accuracy (Landerl amp Wimmer2008) However the pupils in the Torgesen study (2001) revealed not only de1047297cient wordreading accuracy but also de1047297cient reading rate Unlike accuracy reading speed was not explicitly addressed and did not improve to the extent that the gap decreased between the

296 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


intervention pupils and their peers Only few reading interventions have been conducted intransparent orthographies and with little success (see Landerl amp Wimmer 2008) Theassumption behind these studies has been that as reading accuracy is more or less unaffectedonly speed is explicitly trained

However there is some evidence that in spite of differences between orthographiesprerequisites for reading in whatever alphabetic language are similar For example whenreading 1047298uency was measured in syllables not in words Caravolas Volin and Hulme(2005) found that Czech and English children with dyslexia had similar results even thoughCzech is an example of a highly transparent orthography In line with this Patel Snowlingand de Jong (2004) demonstrated in a study including English and Dutch children that phoneme awareness predicts reading skills in both opaque and transparent orthographiesThus even if pupils manage to read words accurately to a larger extent in transparent orthographies than in opaque orthographies their word decoding may not be fullyautomated Therefore it seems reasonable that reading interventions even in transparent

orthographies address both accuracy and speed and should include phonemic awarenesstraining phonemegrapheme mapping and word decoding in tandem with 1047298uency trainingTo test this hypothesis there is a need for randomised reading intervention studies invarious orthographies

According to Wanzek Wexler Vaughn and Ciullo (2010) most knowledge about reading interventions concerns early intervention for young children or interventionsfor pupils aged 12 or more (eg Edmonds et al 2009) Thus there is a scarcity of studiesfor children aged between 9 and 11 Wanzek et al (2010) conducted a synthesis of readingintervention studies for children of these ages Interventions with focus on mappingsounds of language to letters and words yielded small to moderate effect sizes Fluency

training showed inconsistent results Only two multi-component studies were found andincluded in the analysis However they showed promising outcomes on various readingmeasures implying that more research is needed to con1047297rm the effects (Wanzek et al2009)

The main aim of the present study was to examine the effects on reading-related skillsof an intensive phonics-based intervention program for nine-year-old Swedish pupils ingrade 3 with reading dif 1047297culties The intervention program was designed for one-to-onetutoring during an intensive and limited period of time It was based on three main components(i) phonemic decoding and phonemic awareness training (ii) reading 1047298uency training and(iii) reading comprehension strategies According to the National Reading Panel (2000)these aspects of reading instruction should be integrated to create a complete readingprogramme Reading 1047298uency and accuracy in decoding are supposed to underpin readingcomprehension skills

Four aspects of reading were in focus reading comprehension spelling reading 1047298uency andphoneme awareness Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to analyse interrelationsamong these aspects The idea was that adequate reading comprehension reading 1047298uencyand spelling are the skills to be developed and that phoneme awareness underpins these skillsUsing latent variable models the effects of the intervention were examined over timewith longitudinal data

METHOD

Based on screening nine-year-old pupils with reading dif 1047297culties were identi1047297ed andrandomly assigned to either a reading intervention group or a control group The intervention

Effects of a Randomised Reading Intervention 297


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


comprised twelve weeks of one-to-one tutoring The pupils were assessed at three timepoints just before and immediately after intervention and one year later The data generatedby this longitudinal design was analysed with SEM which makes it possible to draw conclusionsabout the longitudinal development of error-free variables representing theoretical

constructsSome of the questions asked could have been approached with the more standardmultilevel regression method (Goldstein 2003) to estimate a longitudinal model withthe observations at three time points (level 1) nested under child (level 2) Howeverfor the present purposes this approach has serious limitations First it assumes observedmeasures to be perfectly reliable which was not the case for the current data Second themultilevel longitudinal modelling approach assumes variables to be measured on the samescale at all time points which was not the case for measures for some of the constructsThird multilevel longitudinal modelling does not allow estimation of direct and indirect relations between multiple dependent variables Therefore the more appropriate SEM

technique was used to analyse the data A Multiple Indicators Multiple Cause approach(Brown 2006) was chosen implying that a one-group model was 1047297tted using dummyvariables to indicate group membership (no interventionintervention) and gender (boygirl)This procedure has the advantage of requiring estimation of few parameters only and it hasthe disadvantage that it only estimates main effects of the group indicators on outcomesbut not allowing for differential relationships among variables within groups An alternativecould have been to use a multiple group modelling approach which allows full 1047298exibility inestimating different parameters for different groups However sample size was not suf 1047297cient to allow multiple group modelling with current data

Screening of Participants

A total of 2212 nine-year old pupils from 11 municipalities located in rural and urban areasin different parts of Sweden were given a screening battery for reading dif 1047297culties Thebattery comprised a word decoding test a phonological choice test an orthographicchoice test and a reading comprehension test The purpose was to identify pupils withword decoding dif 1047297culties which appeared to depend on a phonological de1047297cit Thuslow scores on the phonological task and on word decoding were required for inclusionThe reading comprehension task did not constitute a basis for selection as the purpose

was not to include pupils with poor comprehension and adequate decoding skills in thestudy

Pupils with scores one standard deviation below the mean on the phonological choicetask and scores one standard deviation below the mean on either word decoding or theorthographic choice test or both were selected to participate in the intervention studyIn a second step the selected pupils were randomly assigned to two different conditionsthe control or the intervention group

Participants

The pupils selected (N =117) were recruited from 59 schools They were randomlyassigned to the intervention group (n = 58 33 boys and 25 girls) and the control group(n = 59 43 boys and 16 girls) The allocation procedure resulted in a noticeable genderimbalance between groups which was due to chance Mean age was 925 years (SD= 03)All pupils were attending third grade The special educators in the school district checked

298 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


with parents and teachers if the pupils with Swedish as an additional language spokeSwedish at the age of three If not they were excluded from the study

All parents had provided informed consent before the screening was conducted Evenso each childrsquos parents were contacted again if the child was selected to participate either

in the control group or in the intervention group Only one childrsquo

s parent declinedparticipation in the control group However three control children were excluded fromthe study after performing the pre-tests as they were found to be false positives in that they did perform within the normal range and thus did not meet the inclusion criteriaAdditionally one child from the intervention group was excluded because he laterreceived a diagnosis of learning disability other than reading dif 1047297culties Thus 112 pupilsparticipated in the study (intervention group n = 57 32 boys 25 girls control groupn = 55 41 boys and 14 girls)

Intervention Procedure

The intervention program RAFT (lsquoReading And Fluency Training based on phonemeawarenessrsquo) was designed for this study and adapted to Swedish orthography Pupils inthe intervention group received individual instruction every school day 40 minutesa day for 12weeks for a total of 40 hours Teachers employed by the participatingmunicipalities with a graduate diploma in special education were trained within the project to deliver the intervention program The intervention was provided in place of classroominstruction when possible instead of literacy instruction Instruction was either delivered bythe same teacher every day or there was one teacher four days a week and an additionalteacher the 1047297fth day of the week These combinations were the only ones allowed by the

program design and each teacher or pair of teachers had to instruct at least two pupilsThe pupils in the control group participated in ordinary classroom instruction which in most cases (about 75) included special education in a group or individually However possiblespecial education was provided by teachers not involved in the project In Swedish schoolsthere is a tradition of instruction of phonemegrapheme mapping even if this approach hasbeen and in some cases still is questioned especially in teacher education

The training was based on three main elements phonemic awarenessdecoding reading comprehension strategies and 1047298 uency training Around 60 of the instruction time was spent on phonemic decoding and phonemic awareness whereas about 40 was spent oncomprehension strategies and 1047298uency training The program followed a strict progressionwith detailed instructions each day and the overall structure was the same for eachsession The project staff visited each teacher to check program 1047297delity and the teacherswrote a short report every day about the implementation and possible deviations Therewere variations in attendance but if a child was absent from the training effort was madeto offer extra training as compensation for this absence This was accomplished by forexample prolonged sessions or having two sessions in one day

The Swedish orthography

The Swedish orthography is morpho-phonological with many compound words and

consonant clusters are frequent (Wolff 2009) Reading is less complex than spelling(Lundberg 1985) as there are few possible pronunciations of a grapheme whereas thereare several possible spellings of a phoneme The greatest dif 1047297culty in spelling for most individuals involves doubling of consonants following a short vowel in a stressed syllableOn a continuum of orthographic depth where English at one end is opaque and forexample Finnish and Hungarian at the other end are transparent Swedish is somewhere



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


in the middle It is more opaque than German and less opaque than French (Seymour Aroamp Erskine 2003) In contrast to many English programs sight word training was not included in the current study as there are few such words in Swedish

Phonemic awareness and decoding One part of the program included photos (consonants) and drawings (vowels) of mouthsdepicting pronunciation of sounds They were partly in there for awareness of articulationand partly for the bene1047297t of phonemic decoding The children and teachers could forexample lsquowritersquo words by simply putting strings of the magnetic pictures of mouths onto the blackboard letting the other one lsquoreadrsquo the mouths Graphemes were then matchedwith the mouths and sounded out into words Gradually the mouths were removedunless the child asked for them to remain However the vowels were always kept in ascheme according to their pronunciation on the black board Each session started withthe child repeating the nine Swedish vowels both the long and the short version from

the front vowels to the back vowels and from closed to open vowels After the 1047297rst couple of weeks this repetition took only around 15 seconds The purpose was to helpthe child distinguish between the vowels and especially between long and short varietiesas this is as mentioned the main problem in spelling for Swedish pupils with dyslexia Thedrilling of mapping phonemes to graphemes may be considered a humdrum activity andmajor effort was put in to make the activities in the program creative and enjoyable byfor example game-like exercises However the most important way to make the programinteresting to the pupils was to base it on a structure where the pupils met only a few newdif 1047297culties at a time and they were carefully presented so the pupil could master thetasks they were given The 1047297rst 1047297ve weeks were spent on phonetic spelling and reading

and the following weeks also included spelling and reading beyond one-to-one mappingof phonemes to graphemes and vice versa

Reading 1047298 uency

Each session ended and the last day of the week also started with repeated reading of oneand the same text so the same text was read six times over 1047297ve days The number of words in the texts varied according to the pupil rsquos reading speed The text was supposedto take the pupil four to 1047297ve minutes to read the 1047297rst time During the 1047297rst six weeksone set of six texts with the same length and dif 1047297culty was used The pupils recorded theirprogress by making graphs of the time spent on reading the text and of accuracy Thefollowing six weeks another set of six texts were chosen if appropriate and the childhad improved reading speed with a larger number of words

Reading comprehension

As the decoding skills were poor among these pupils it was not possible for them to readage-appropriate texts Hence reading comprehension skills were partly trained with theteacher reading the text Texts were discussed and the teachers made it explicit that thereare different kinds of questions (i) the answer is right there in the text (ii) you may 1047297nd theanswer if you put different segments of the text together and (iii) the answer is not in the

text so you have to attend to your prior knowledge The pupils were given a chart withthese questions marked in different colours They also had a chart with the who wherewhich what why questions which they sometimes used to retell the important points of a story The teachers also made the pupils re1047298ect on the text before during and afterreading by for example asking questions like Why do you think she acted like that What do you think will happen next and Where do you think they are Why

300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure

The screening tests were conducted during the last four weeks of grade 2 and wereadministered by local special educators in each municipality Screening time was approxi-mately 25 minutes All the pupils selected to participate in the study were then assessed

immediately prior to the start of the reading intervention (pre-test) immediately afterintervention (post-test) and one year later (henceforth the follow-up test) These assessmentswere carried out by a group of experienced testers who were specially trained by theresearch group for this purpose The intervention started in the beginning of grade 3and twelve weeks later the intervention was completed Even though the assessment batteries were not exactly identical at pre- post- and follow-up-tests the common testswere administered in the same order during two separate sessions The 1047297rst session wasgroup administered and it lasted for about two to three hours including a break Thesecond session was individually administrated and lasted for about one and a half hourincluding a break

Instruments

First the screening tests are described followed by the pre- post- and follow-up tests

Screening Tests

Phonological choice

Triplets of non-words were printed in columns in a booklet Each non-word was

pronounceable but only one corresponded to a real word when read aloud The task was to mark in each triplet the alternative which was a pseudo-homophone with apronunciation equivalent to a real word The only way to arrive at a correct decision inthis task is to silently pronounce the words and 1047297nd out which one matches an internalphonological representation that is the sound of a real word A large number of tripletswere presented and the task was to quickly mark as many correct alternatives as possiblewithin three minutes A similar task has been used by Olson Forsberg Wise and Rack (1994) and it has proven to yield a valid and reliable indication of phonological abilityTest ndash retest reliability is 84 (Wolff 2010)

Orthographic choice

The task format was similar to the format of the phonological choice task Triplets of wordswere presented in columns Only one word in a triplet was a correctly spelled wordwhereas the other words were pronounceable non-words and pseudo-homophones tothe target word The task was to recognize the word with correct orthography and mark it with a pencil This task could only be solved on the basis of orthographic knowledgenot pronunciation as in the phonological choice task The 1047297nal score was the number of correctly marked words within three minutes Test ndash retest reliability is 84 (Wolff 2010)

Word reading The task comes from the Wordchains test (Jacobson 2001) and involves separation of triplets of words written without inter-word spaces The participant has to correctlymark the inter-word spaces in as many triplets as possible within three minutes Highperformance on this task requires fully automatized word identi1047297cation The validity of this task as an indicator of word reading skill has been demonstrated in several studies



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


(see eg Samuelsson Herkner amp Lundberg 2003 Skolverket 2001) Test ndash retest reliabilityis 89 (Jacobson 2001)


Short statements were presented with four alternative pictures each (Lundberg 2001)The task was to choose among the pictures and indicate which one corresponded tothe statement The distractor alternatives could for example illustrate a boy who goesskating when the statement was lsquoThe boy goes skiingrsquo Working time was ten minutesand the total score was the number correct in this time The test is widely used in Swedenbut there is no reliability measure available

Pre- Post- and Follow-up Tests

The pre- post- and follow-up tests are presented in groups which are re1047298ecting different aspects related to reading phonological awareness spelling reading comprehension andreading speed Reading speed comprises both text and word reading speed The meansand standard deviations for the manifest variables are reported in Table 1

Phoneme awareness

Spoonerism This task was modelled after Perin (1983) It is a word game where the participant is asked to make the initial sounds of two words swap places ie nice garden becomes gicenarden In this version of the task six word pairs were presented orally The words of each pairhad a natural association ie they occur together with high frequency in natural language The

accuracy and reaction time were recorded The test was developed for this study

Reversed spoonerism This task captures phonological skills with a more limited memoryload and with no production requirement Two associated words were presented Howeveralready at the presentation the initial sounds were swapped (an equivalent in English wouldhave been the word pair red book changed to bed rook ) The task was now to reconstruct the spoonerized word pair into the original words A total of six pairs were presentedReaction time and accuracy were recorded The test was developed for this study

Phoneme deletion The student was presented a word orally by the test leader and was thenrequired to say the word with a designated phoneme omitted The target word was a realword eg stay without t becomes say The test was developed for this study

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) for phoneme awareness is 70

Spelling

DLS spelling test grade 2 (Jaumlrpsten 1999) The test administrator read out aloud a short story with 20 embedded target words After each target word there was a break andthe pupils were required to spell this word No time restriction was imposed and accuracywas recorded

Spelling eight words The test leader dictated eight single words with varying complexityconcerning for example clusters and phonemegrapheme correspondence which thepupils were required to spell Accuracy was recorded The test was developed for thisstudy

302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1

M e a n s ( s d i n b r a c k e t s ) o f t h e m a n i f e s t v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p ( n

= 5 5 ) a n d t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n g r o u p ( n

= 5 7 ) a t p r e - p o s t - a n d f o l l o w - u p t e s t i n g

M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l

I n t e r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )

R e v e r s e d s p o o n e

r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )

P h o n e m e d e l e t i o n

6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )

R e a d i n g c o m p r e h

e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )

R e a d i n g s p e e d w

o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)

N o n mdash v e r b a l I Q

2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


DLS spelling test grade 3 (Jaumlrpsten 1999) The test administrator read out aloud a short story with 20 embedded target words After each target word there was a break andthe pupils were required to spell this word No time restriction was imposed Accuracywas recorded This test was only used in the follow-up testing

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) for spelling is 87


Pre- and post-tests DLS reading comprehension grade 2 (Jaumlrpsten 1999) This task captured the ability to read and understand connected text Multiple-choice questionswere interposed within the text No time limit was imposed

The reading comprehension task included in the screening was used to form the readingcomprehension composite in the pre-test and this test was also used in the post-test

Follow up-tests Eight passages from the IEA Reading Literacy Studies carried out byThe International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in 1991

The texts were two narrative four expository and two document texts (ie information inthe form of maps tables graphs etc) and ranged in length from 43 to 517 words Eachpassage was followed by three to 1047297ve multiple-choice questions

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) for reading comprehension at pre- andpost-test is 65 and at follow-up 85

Reading speed

Pupils read out two different texts aloud Rate was measured for each text and wasrecorded as wordsminute

Word reading list The task was to read as many printed real words as possible within 60seconds Words were presented in vertical lists and were not graded by dif 1047297culty The test was developed for this study

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) for reading speed was not possible tocalculate as the tests were speeded

Non-verbal IQ

Standard progressive matrices A B C and D were performed (Raven Raven amp Court 2000)The non-verbal IQ test was only administrated at pre-test

The internal consistency reliability (alpha) for non-verbal IQ is 77

Analytic Procedure

The applied method was SEM with the Mplus 6 program used under the STREAMSmodelling environment (Gustafsson amp Stahl 2005) The model comprises 1047297ve latent variablesphonological awareness reading comprehension spelling reading speed and non-verbal IQNon-verbal IQ and the latent reading variables at pre-test served as control variables andthe aim was to examine the in1047298uence of the intervention on different aspects of reading over

timeChi-square will be reported with the ratio of chi-square and degrees of freedom (wsup2df)Recommendations for an acceptable ratio range from 50 to 20 (Hooper Coughlan ampMullen 2008) Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) and con1047297dence intervalsStandardised Root Mean square Residual (SRMR) will also be reported To indicate good1047297t the RMSEA estimate and the upper range of its 90 con1047297dence interval should be

304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


lower than 07 (Steiger 2007) or about 08 but not greater than 1 (Browne amp Cudeck1993) SRMR should be less than 08 (Hu and Bentler 1999)

RESULTS

In the results section means and standard deviations for the control and interventiongroups at pre- post- and follow up-testing are reported followed by measurement modelswith loadings of the manifest variables on the latent variables and the inter-correlationsbetween the latent variables and over time

As pointed out earlier students were randomly assigned to either the control group orthe intervention group Nevertheless students in the control group tended to performbetter on the composite measures in the pre-test compared to the intervention groupTable 1 shows means and standard deviations for the manifest variables at three time

points for the control and intervention group

Con1047297rmatory Factor Analyses

An oblique simple-structure con1047297rmatory factor analysis model was 1047297rst 1047297tted to the datafrom each wave of measurement relating the 1047297ve hypothesized latent variables to their threeto seven indicators The models 1047297tted the data well at pre-test (wsup2 = 11688 df = 95 wsup2df=12RMSEA = 045 CI = 000ndash 071 SRMR= 06) at post-test (wsup2 = 4445 df = 48 wsup2df=9RMSEA = 000 CI = 000ndash 054 SRMR= 04) and at follow-up test (wsup2=13573 df=113 wsup2df=12 RMSEA=042 CI=000ndash 067 SRMR = 06) Table 2 shows the factor loadings of

the manifest variables ranging from 515 to 979 Table 3 shows the inter-correlationsbetween the latent variables The correlations were signi1047297cant except for the correlationbetween non-verbal IQ on the one hand and reading speed and reading comprehension onthe other hand

Table 2 Range of factor loadings of each manifest variable to its related factor at pre- post- andfollow-up tests

Pre-test Post-test Follow-up test

Spelling 788ndash 875 637ndash 943 630ndash 897

Phoneme awareness 586ndash

730 563ndash

887 585ndash

949Reading comprehension 553ndash 785 515ndash 890 527ndash 732Reading speed 866ndash 979 654ndash 960 880ndash 900Non-verbal IQ 572ndash 806 - -

Table 3 Inter-correlations between the latent variables in the measurement model

1 2 3 4 5

1Spelling 1002 Phoneme awareness 524 100

3Reading comprehension 726 563 1004 Reading speed 506 424 785 1005 Non-verbal IQ 287 516 281 059 100

plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Structural Equation Modelling

In the 1047297rst step autoregressive relations among the latent variables (reading comprehensionreading speed phoneme awareness spelling) representing post-test and follow-up test wereincluded The autoregressive effects were higher than the inter-correlations between the

latent variables (Table 3) justifying the assumption that these latent variables represent distinct concepts Non-verbal IQ was freely correlated with all the other latent variables at initialtesting and the signi1047297cant correlations are shown in the model This model had a reasonable1047297t (wsup2=127464 df=973 wsup2df=13 RMSEA=053 CI=044ndash 060 SRMR=09) but withroom for improvement This could indicate that there are effects from the intervention onthe outcome variables or cross-lagged relations between latent variables over time Testingfor cross-lagged relations over time showed a signi1047297cant relation from phonological awarenessat post-test to spelling and reading comprehension at follow-up and from reading comprehen-sion at post-test to spelling at follow-up No other cross-lagged relations were found

The model included a dummy variable representing group condition (Intervention) at initial testing and also a dummy variable representing Gender Covariances were estimatedbetween Gender and Intervention for all latent variables at pre-test However the onlyrelation shown in the 1047297gure is between phoneme awareness and group as this was the onlysigni1047297cant estimate It was in favour of the control group (t =253 plt 005)

Next relations were introduced between the intervention variable and the latent variables at post-test which were all found to be signi1047297cant Then relations between theIntervention variable and the latent variables at follow-up test were introduced whichall were non-signi1047297cant This model (Figure 1) 1047297tted the data well (wsup2 = 1385238 df = 1047wsup2df=13 RMSEA=054 CI=046ndash 061 SRMR = 07)

The strongest effect of Intervention on the outcomes at post-test was found forphoneme awareness (t =226 plt 05 d = 43) followed by reading comprehension

Figure 1 Structural equation model with non-verbal IQ at pre-test and reading speed spellingphoneme awareness and reading comprehension at pre- post- and follow-up test one year laterGender and group condition are included in the model The signi1047297cant correlations between the

variables are shown in the 1047297gure Note plt 05 plt 001

306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


(t =270 plt 01 d = 41) spelling (t =200 plt 05 d = 30) and reading speed(t = 199 plt 05 d = 15) Finally indirect effects from intervention to the latent variablesat follow-up were estimated The total indirect effect was signi1047297cant for all outcomesreading comprehension (t =334 plt 001 d = 33) spelling (t =377 plt 001 d =34)

speed (t =198 plt

05 d =13) and phoneme awareness (t =227 plt

05 d =32)

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that gains in spelling reading speed reading comprehension andphoneme awareness which remain over a one-year follow-up can be achieved by intensivephonics-linked instruction in combination with repeated reading and reading comprehensionstrategies

The intervention program was designed for one-to-one tutoring during twelve weeks

In line with previous research (eg Hatcher et al 2006 Torgesen 2005) the main component of the intervention program was phonics-linked activities Reading 1047298uency and readingcomprehension strategies were important components which were explicitly taught Reading1047298uency has previously appeared to be hard to remediate in both opaque and transparent orthographies (Landerl amp Wimmer 2008 Torgesen amp Hudson 2006) The underlying theoryof dyslexia manifesting as accuracy problems in opaque orthographies and reading 1047298uencyproblems in transparent orthographies has resulted in interventions predominately focusingdecoding and phonemic awareness in the former case and 1047298uency training in the latter caseThe present study suggests the importance of multi-component interventions for readingimpaired children This is probably true for both transparent and opaque orthographies as

cognitive de1047297cits underlying dyslexia seem to be similar for children in different orthographies(Caravolas 2005)

At the immediate post-test there were signi1047297cant differences between the controlgroup and the intervention group on spelling reading speed reading comprehensionand phoneme awareness in favour of the intervention group According to Cohenrsquos roleof thumb these effects were about low to medium At follow-up test one year later therewere no direct effects but signi1047297cant indirect effects from intervention to all variablesThus these results show that the intervention effects remained after one year the initialeffects being mediated through the autoregressive effects via post-test to follow-up andthrough cross-lagged effects on spelling and reading comprehension via phoneme aware-ness and reading comprehension The fact that the intervention effect did not get strongerover time shows that spontaneous further improvement after the intervention has ceasedto occur It may also be noted however that the effect estimates at both post-test andfollow-up may be biased against the intervention because there are indications that severalcontrol pupils received more special education than they probably would have received if they had not been included in the study as it is not possible to keep group membership in areading intervention blind to classrooms teachers headmasters and remedial teachers

In the Torgesen et al study (2001) the intervention group continued to receive specialeducation in small groups after the intensive intervention This may be an important factor

for the sustained gains in reading accuracy on delayed tests one and two years afterintervention in this study In the present study it was not possible to make sure the pupilswould receive special education when the intensive intervention was over

However there were indirect effects in the one-year follow-up via each of the post-tests Additionally spelling one year later was mediated through reading comprehensionat the post-test and reading comprehension and spelling one year later were mediated



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


through phonological awareness Phonological awareness thus seems to underpin spellingand reading comprehension one year later and appears to be a critical skill among childrenwith reading dif 1047297culties even at older ages

One essential feature of the present study is the randomised allocation of children to

either a control group or an intervention group Without a control group there is a risk that results will be affected by regression towards the mean given that low-achievingchildren were identi1047297ed in the screening Another threat to the validity of the resultswhich emphasizes the need for a control group is that children may develop a familiaritywith testing which may affect the results in a positive direction A third reason for includinga control group is that there is a lack of standardized reading tests and tests of underlyingabilities in Sweden which makes it impossible with few exceptions to measureimprovement in terms of standard scores Nevertheless some comparisons with normaldeveloping children have been possible to conduct showing positive results The mean gainon a reading comprehension test (Lundberg 2001) was 038 standard scores per hour of

intervention However this test was given both before and after intervention and the test ndash retest effect is not known but the multiple-choice format of this test does not make it likelythat children perceive or recall the correct responses Compared to the outcomes of a reviewof standard gains in intervention studies (Torgesen 2005) the present study is one of the more ef 1047297cient studies concerning reading comprehension It is comparable to RashotteMacphee and Torgesen (2001) with 32 standard scores gain per hour of intervention andto Hatcher Hulme and Ellis (1994) with 39 standard scores gain per hour in readingcomprehension

A limitation of the study is the absence of a treated control group It was not considered asethically defensible to occupy pupils identi1047297ed as poor readers with some activity not assumed

to be effective Instead the control pupils were supposed to participate in ordinary classroomactivities which for most of them included special education Another limitation concerns theRAFT teachers For economic reasons it was not possible to engage staff outside schools tocarry out the program In exchange for an opportunity to increase levels of competence instaff municipalities were motivated to allow special needs teachers to participate in the studyThese teachers were often the driving force behind such decisions Thus they were interestedin reading dif 1047297culties and they thought research to be important for their professional workThey were highly educated and had a special interest in reading dif 1047297culties Yet there wasvariability in actual experience of teaching phonics in a structured way but their knowledgein this area seems superior compared to other teachers (Wolff 2011) It is therefore possiblethat the standard of the special needs education in these areas is above average Accordinglyintervention effects may have been even more evident in other school districts wherethe quality of the support received by the control group might not have been so high(cf Torgesen 2005)

Different approaches in reading intervention embodying the same key components forreading seem to be broadly equivalent (eg Hulme amp Snowling 2009 Torgesen 2005Mathes et al 2005) Thus the purpose of the very detailed instructions in the RAFTprogram is not to suggest that this is the only appropriate method Rather the programwas designed with the intention to make it easy for teachers to follow irrespective of

linguistic knowledgeIn summary a multi-component intervention including phonemic awareness andphonics combined with comprehension strategies and 1047298uency training proved to beef 1047297cient and yielding lasting improvement The current study is the 1047297rst of its kind inSweden and this 1047297rst step showed promising results However as seems to be the caseconcerning other orthographies too length of intervention and balance between

308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


intervention components need more research Furthermore in future studies it would bedesirable to compare a multi-component intervention like this to interventions with onlyone component at a time as phonics reading comprehension strategies and 1047298uencytraining

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was 1047297nanced by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Tercente-nary Bank Foundation I would like to thank the participating children and teachers whomade this study possible Thanks also to Professor Jan-Eric Gustafsson for many helpfulsuggestions

REFERENCESAdams M J (1990) Beginning to read Boston Mass MIT Press

Brown T A (2006) Con1047297rmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research New York The Guilford Press

Browne M W amp Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model 1047297t In K Bollen amp J Long(Eds) Testing structured equation models (pp 136ndash 162) Newbury Park CA Sage

Caravolas M (2005) The nature and causes of dyslexia in different languages In C Hulme ampM Snowling (Eds) The Science of Reading (pp 336ndash 355) Oxford Blackwell

Caravolas M Volin J amp Hulme C (2005) Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabeticliteracy skills in consistent and inconsistent orthographies Evidence from Czech and English children Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 92 107ndash 139

Edmonds M Vaughn S Wexler J Reutebuch C Cable A Klingler Tackett K amp Wick Schnakenberg J (2009) A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehensionoutcomes for older struggling readers Review of Educational Research 79 262ndash 300

Foorman B R amp Torgesen J (2001) Critical elements of classroom and small-group instructionpromote reading success in all children Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 16 203ndash 212

Frith U Wimmer H amp Landerl K (1998) Differences in phonological recoding in German andEnglish speaking children Scienti 1047297c Studies of Reading 2 31ndash 54

Goldstein H (2003) Multilevel statistical models New York John Wiley

Gustafsson J-E amp Stahl P-A (2005) STREAMS User rsquo s Guide Moumllndal Sweden Multivariate Ware

Hatcher P J Hulme C amp Ellis A W (1994) Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating theteaching of reading and phonological skills The phonological linkage hypothesis Child Development 65 41ndash 57

Hatcher P Hulme C Miles J Carroll J Hatcher J Gibbs S Smith G Bowyer-Crane C ampSnowling M (2006) Ef 1047297cacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers withreading-delay a randomised controlled trial Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47 820ndash 827

Hoslashien T amp Lundberg I (2000) Dyslexia From theory to intervention Dordrecht NL KluwerAcademic Publishers

Hooper D Coughlan J amp Mullen M R (2008) Structural equation modeling Guidelines fordetermining model 1047297t Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 6 53ndash 60

Hu L amp Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria for 1047297t indexes in covariance structure analysis

conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structure Equation modelling 6 1ndash

55Hulme C amp Snowling M (2009) Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition OxfordBlackwell

Jacobson C (2001) Laumlskedjor [Manual for the Wordchains test] Stockholm Psykologifoumlrlaget

Jaumlrpsten B (1999) DLS foumlr klasserna 2 och 3 [Test of reading and writing year 2 and 3] StockholmHogrefe Psykologifoumlrlaget



7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Landerl K amp Wimmer H (2008) Development of word reading 1047298uency and spelling in a consistent orthography An 8-year follow-up Journal of Educational Psychology 100 150ndash 161

Lundberg I (1985) Longitudinal studies of reading and writing dif 1047297culties in Sweden In G EMcKinnon amp T G Waller (Eds) Reading Research Advances in Theory and Practice (pp 65ndash 105)New York Academic Press

Lundberg I (2001) Vilken bild aumlr raumltt [Picture reading test] Stockholm Natur och KulturLundberg I Frost J amp Petersen O (1988) Effects on an extensive program for stimulatingphonological awareness in pre-school children Reading Research Quarterly 23 263ndash 284

Mathes P Denton C Fletcher J Anthony J Francis D amp Schatschneider C (2005) The effectsof theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readersReading Research Quarterly 40 148ndash 182

National Reading Panel (2000) Teaching children to read An evidence-based assessment of the scienti 1047297c research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction Washington DC NationalInstitutes of Child Health and Human Development

Olson R Forsberg H Wise B amp Rack J (1994) Measurement of word recognition orthographic

and phonological skills In G R Lyon (Ed) Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilitiesNew views on measurement issues (pp 243ndash 277) Baltimore MD Paul H Brookes

Patel T K Snowling M J amp de Jong P F (2004) Learning to read in Dutch and English A cross-linguistic comparison Journal of Educational Psychology 96 785ndash 797

Perin D (1983) Phonemic segmentation and spelling British Journal of Psychology 74 129ndash 144

Rack J (2004) The theory and practice of specialist literacy teaching In G Reid amp A Fawcett (Eds)Dyslexia in Context (pp 120ndash 131) London Whurr Publishers

Ramus F (2004) The neural basis of reading acquisition In M S Gazzaniga (Ed) The CognitiveNeurosciences ( 3rd ed ) Cambridge MA MIT Press

Rashotte C A MacPhee K amp Torgesen J K (2001) The effectiveness of a group readinginstruction program with poor readers in multiple grades Learning Disability Quarterly 24119ndash 134Raven J Raven J C amp Court J H (2000) Standard progressive matrices Including the parallel and plusversions Oxford Oxford Psychologist Press

Samuelsson S Herkner B amp Lundberg I (2003) Reading and writing dif 1047297culties among prison inmatesA matter of experiential factors rather than dyslexic problems Scienti 1047297c Studies of Reading 7 53ndash 73

Seymour P H K Aro M amp Erskine J M (2003) Foundation literacy acquisition in Europeanorthographies British Journal of Psychology 94 143ndash 174

Skolverket (2001) PISA 2000 Svenska femtonaringringars laumlsfoumlrmaringga och kunnande i matematik ochnaturvetenskap i ett internationellt perspektiv [PISA 2000 Swedish 15-year old studentsrsquo readingcompetence and knowledge of mathematics and science in an international perspective] Skolverket

Rapport 209 2001Snow C Burns S amp Grif 1047297n P (1998) Preventing reading dif 1047297culties in young children Washington DCNational Academy Press

Snowling M (2000) Dyslexia Oxford Blackwell

Stanovich K E (1986) Matthew effects in reading some consequences of individual differences inthe acquisition of literacy Reading Research Quarterly 21 360ndash 407

Steiger J (2007) Understanding the limitations of global 1047297t assessment in structural equationmodeling Personality and Individual Differences 42 893ndash 898

Taube K (1987) Laumlsinlaumlrning och sjaumllvfoumlrtroende (Reading acquisition and self-esteem) StockholmRabeacuten amp Sjoumlgren

Torgesen J K (2000) Individual differences in response to early intervention in reading Thelingering problem of treatment resisters Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 15 55ndash 64

Torgesen J K (2002 August) Setting new goals for intervention with older children Lessons fromreasearch Paper presented at The Third Nordic Conference on Dyslexia in Stockholm Sweden

Torgesen J K (2005) Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia In CHulme amp M Snowling (Eds) The Science of Reading (pp 521-537) Oxford Blackwell

310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Torgesen J K amp Hudson R F (2006) Reading 1047298uency critical issues for struggling readers In S JSamuels amp A Farstrup (Eds) Reading 1047298 uency The forgotten dimension of reading success Newark DEInternational Reading Association

Torgesen J K Alexander A W Wagner R K Rashotte C A Voeller K K S amp Conway T(2001) Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities Immediate and

long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches Journal of Learning Disabilities 34 33ndash

58Tunmer W E (2008) Recent developments in reading intervention research Introduction to theSpecial Issue Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal 21 299ndash 316

Wanzek J Wexler J Vaughn S amp Ciullo S (2010) Reading interventions for strugglingreaders in the upper elementary grades a synthesis of 20 years of research Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal 23 889ndash 912

Wolff U (2009) Phonological and surface subtypes among university students with dyslexiaInternational Journal of Disability Development and Education 56 73ndash 90

Wolff U (2010) Lilla Duvan Dyslexiscreening foumlr aringrskurs 3 5 och 7 [Dyslexia screening tests forgrades 3 5 and 7] Stockholm Hogrefe Psykologifoumlrlaget

Wolff U (2011) Oumlkad kompetens om skriftspraringksutveckling genom samarbete mellan skola ochforskare [Increased competence in the structure of language through collaboration between schoolsand research] Dyslexi- aktuellt om laumls- och skrivsvaringrigheter 2 10ndash 13


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Frost amp Petersen 1988 Snow Burns amp Grif 1047297n 1998) Preventive intervention has alsobeen shown to be more ef 1047297cient than remedial intervention (Torgesen amp Hudson 2006Tunmer 2008) However despite this knowledge there are pupils who will be in need of remedial instruction at older ages either because they did not get the right kind of interven-

tion or because of the severity of their problems The current study concerns nine-year-oldSwedish pupils who were identi1047297ed in a screening procedure as being signi1047297cantly behind theirpeers despite two years of formal literacy teaching They were in third grade as compulsoryschool starts at the age of seven in Sweden

Most researchers agree that one crucial component in reading intervention is thedevelopment of phonemic awareness and that this is most ef 1047297cient when the correspondencebetween phonemes and graphemes is made explicit (see eg Adams 1990 Hoslashien amp Lundberg2000 Rack 2004 Snowling 2000) In a meta-analysis conducted by the National Reading Panel(2000) explicit instruction in phonemic awareness phonics 1047298uency construction of meaningvocabulary and reading comprehension strategies were found to be signi1047297cant elements of

effective reading instruction However even with good instruction a signi1047297cant number of children will require instructional interventions beyond the capacity of the regular classroomteacher (Torgesen 2000 Torgesen et al 2001) It is argued that the same components of instruction are needed but that they have to be even more intensive more explicit morecomprehensible and that they need to be carried out in small groups or in one-to-onetutoring (Foorman amp Torgesen 2001) Typically children placed in special education do not fall further behind but neither do they close the gap in reading to their peers (Torgesen2002) There is some evidence that more intensive intervention than is usually carried out in schools is far more ef 1047297cient even over a shorter period than a few hours of remedialinstruction a week over a longer period of time (Torgesen 2002) Hatcher et al (2006)

demonstrated that a group of reading delayed children after ten weeks of intense interventionmade progress in reading comparable to another group of reading delayed children whoreceived 20 weeks of the same kind of intervention

Torgesen et al (2001) conducted an intervention study including 60 children betweeneight and ten years old who had not acquired adequate word reading skills despite instructionin the regular classroom and in special education At the start of the intervention the childrenperformed at least 15 SD below the mean on two word reading tests They received two50-minute sessions per day for eight weeks (675 hours) carried out with two different methods both of which involved phonemic awareness phonemic decoding and sight word recognition skills The pupils showed powerful improvements in generalizedreading skills during the intervention period (Torgesen et al 2001) Even in thefollow-up period two years after intervention the pupils made progress and continuedto close the gap performing as a group in the lower end of the normal range of abilityin word reading accuracy and reading comprehension About 40 of the pupils performedat the average in these areas within one year and were no longer in need of special education(Torgesen et al 2001)

Some researchers suggest that reading dif 1047297culties like dyslexia manifest themselves indifferent ways depending on orthography (eg Frith Wimmer amp Landerl 1998) In opaque(inconsistent) orthographies more errors are made than in transparent (consistent)

orthographies whereas poor reading in transparent orthographies is characterized byslow reading and few errors So far most reading intervention studies have been carriedout with English-speaking children with focus on word reading accuracy (Landerl amp Wimmer2008) However the pupils in the Torgesen study (2001) revealed not only de1047297cient wordreading accuracy but also de1047297cient reading rate Unlike accuracy reading speed was not explicitly addressed and did not improve to the extent that the gap decreased between the

296 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)









METHOD




7172019 Wolff U (2011)









Participants


298 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)















7172019 Wolff U (2011)











300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)









METHOD




7172019 Wolff U (2011)









Participants


298 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)















7172019 Wolff U (2011)











300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)









Participants


298 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)















7172019 Wolff U (2011)











300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)















7172019 Wolff U (2011)











300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)











300 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)


Test Procedure



Instruments


Screening Tests

Phonological choice



Orthographic choice





7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)







Phoneme awareness






Spelling



302 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)


T a b l e 1




M a x

P r e - t e s t

P o s t - t e s t

F o l l o w

u p - t e s t

C o n t r o l


C o n t r o l

I n t e

r v e n t i o n

C o n t r o l


S p e l l i n g

d l s 1

1 0

5 7

6 ( 1 8

1 )

5 6

3 ( 1 7 5 )

6 6

4 ( 1 9

3 )

6 8

4 ( 1 5

4 )

7 6

6 ( 1 6

2 )

7 9

6 ( 1 4

9 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s 2

1 0

6 8

5 ( 2 0

0 )

6 7

5 ( 2 0 4 )

7 1

1 ( 2 2

7 )

7 6

7 ( 1 4

7 )

8 2

0 ( 1 3

4 )

8 1

6 ( 1 7

4 )

S p e l l i n g

8 w o r d s

8

4 3

1 ( 1 6

2 )

4 3

2 ( 1 5 6 )

4 8

7 ( 1 5

8 )

5 4

7 ( 1 2

8 )

6 1

1 ( 1 2

8 )

6 5

3 ( 1 5

6 )

S p e l l i n g

d l s g r a d

e 3

8

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

3 8

1 ( 1 9

1 )

4 0

9 ( 1 9

3 )

S p o o n e r i s m

6

1 7

6 ( 2 0

9 )

1 2

6 ( 1 9 2 )

2 5

1 ( 2 0

3 )

2 5

4 ( 2 4

9 )

3 3

9 ( 2 0

6 )

3 0

9 ( 2 2

1 )


r i s m

6

2 5

1 ( 1 7

1 )

1 3

7 ( 1 5 4 )

2 9

3 ( 1 6

1 )

2 9

1 ( 1 6

9 )

3 8

3 ( 1 5

0 )

3 1

6 ( 1 8

1 )


6

4 2

5 ( 1 8

2 )

3 6

5 ( 1 6 1 )

4 8

2 ( 1 4

0 )

4 7

4 ( 1 4

7 )

5 3

0 ( 1 1

2 )

4 9

1 ( 1 4

5 )


e n s i o n

3 8

1 3 7

( 5 7

4 )

1 3 4

( 4 9 8 )

1 8 4

( 7 2

9 )

2 0 1

( 7 5

6 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 1

4

1 4

7 ( 1 2

9 )

1 4

2 ( 1 3 9 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 1

9 ( 1 3

9 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

d l s 2

4

1 6

5 ( 1 3

4 )

1 2

3 ( 2 8 2 )

2 1

6 ( 1 2

7 )

2 0

5 ( 1 1

1 )

mdash

mdash


e n s i o n

I E A

4 2

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash

2 0 5

( 8 4

0 )

2 2 4

( 5 8

3 )


o r d s

w o r d s m i n

mdash

3 2 ( 1 6 4

)

3 0 0

( 1 7 1 )

4 3 ( 1 9 4

)

4

5 ( 2 0 1

)

7 2 ( 2 2 8

)

7 2 ( 2 1 0

)


2 4 2

( 7 0

8 )

2 4 0

( 6 6 9 )

mdash

mdash

mdash

mdash



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










Reading speed




Non-verbal IQ



Analytic Procedure



304 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)



RESULTS











730 563ndash

887 585ndash



1 2 3 4 5



plt05plt01plt001



7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










306 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)



speed (t =198 plt


05 d =32)

DISCUSSION











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)










308 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS























7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)

























310 U Wolff


7172019 Wolff U (2011)











7172019 Wolff U (2011)











Documents

Wolff, U. (2011)