Loading Add to favorites

By Kelly Ryan Hicks and James B. Hale

Reading Club

Commercial Reading Programs: Being an Informed Consumer

Commercial reading programs are useful as they may provide the instructional methods and materials all in one package. Most websites and promotional materials “sound good” when first looking at them. This makes it difficult to determine which programs may be useful and which programs need more evidence, especially for children with learning disabilities (LDs). In considering a commercial reading program, you must determine if it is evidence-based.

Programming decisions must be practical and effective for most children, but none of them will likely meet the needs of all children, especially for children with LDs in reading, who have different causes for their reading problems (e.g., Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006).  Unfortunately, some schools may purchase a commercial package, and then put all children with reading difficulties in the same program regardless of the specific processing deficit and particular reading problem.

In addition, our time, effort, and money are precious commodities so commercial reading programs must be effective at what they claim to provide. Commercial reading programs that are evidence-based include the best quality research in their program development.

Commercial Program Considerations: Here are three important considerations in choosing a commercial reading program:

  • Does the intervention target a specific literacy skill or series of skills?
  • Are the program outcomes supported by evidence, and if so, how strong is the evidence? (e.g., number of peer-reviewed journal articles, significance of differences and replication)
  • Is that evidence credible? (e.g., quality of experimental designs, independent investigations without conflict of interest, differences between children with LDs and children without LDs in the control group)

Commercial Program Caveats:  Before we examine the major commercial reading programs available, we offer two important caveats to keep in mind:

Buyer Beware!

Just because a website claims to have research to support its program does not mean the program is evidence-based. Be a vigilant consumer and read the “fine print” on websites. Investigate publisher’s claims about evidence. Google Scholar and/or ERIC databases can help you see the actual peer-reviewed research that has been conducted on a given commercial program to make sure

Read the Research!

A comprehensive review of research, like the reviews found in the National Reading Panel and/or Institute for Education Sciences (IES), can inform our decisions. For example, What Works Clearinghouse and The National Centre on Intensive Interventions present current research on reading interventions

Commercial Reading Programs for Students with LDs

Many studies review the effectiveness of commercial reading programs. Less common are studies reviewing the effectiveness of intervention programs for students with LDs. Below is a review of evidence supporting commercial reading interventions that are supported by rigorous scientific evidence specifically with students with LDs. Unfortunately, there have been very few studies using commercially available programs that have differentiated between learning disability subtypes (e.g., phonological, orthographic, phoneme-grapheme correspondence, rapid naming, receptive/expressive language; Fiorello et al., 2006).

These commercial reading programs highlight the differing orientations, instructional methods, measurement tools, and outcomes available to consumers targeting students with LDs. These programs are listed in alphabetical order, not in the order of importance, value, research support, or other criteria.

Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes

Authors: Patricia Lindamood and Nanci Bell

Assessment and Intervention Material Described on Website

  • Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS®).
  • Seeing Stars®: Symbol Imagery for Phonological and Orthographic Processing in Reading and Spelling (SI™)
  • Visualizing and Verbalizing for Language Comprehension and Thinking® (V/V®)
  • Talkies®: Visualizing and Verbalizing for Oral Language Comprehension and Expression (Talkies®)

REVIEW OF LIPS

  • 50 Learning Centres available internationally, school training and partnerships available
  • Teachers work in large or small groups, or with individual students
  • Students become more aware of the mouth movements that produce speech sounds
  • Students learn to identify sounds within words and teach them to self-correct in reading, spelling, and speech.
  • Visual-orthographic strategies and visualization/verbalization strategies focus on sound-symbol and comprehension respectively
  • Recommended four to six months for 1 hour/day or 4-6 weeks for 4 hours/day
  • Computer supported activities and materials are engaging and enjoyable
  • LIPS advantage is it provides strategies for phonology, orthography, receptive and expressive language learning disability subtypes, but not as focused on reading fluency/rapid automatic naming or working memory subtype needs

Research Supporting LiPS®

  • Positive effects for the LiPS® treatment group in the areas of, reading fluency, and math for students with learning disabilities (Torgesen et. al. 2001, What Works Clearinghouse, 2010b)
  • LiPS® and Earobics® also found to be effective in improving phonological awareness, word attack, and letter-word identification of beginning readers in the general population (Torgesen et al. 2003, What Works Clearinghouse, 2010b)
  • Improved phonemic awareness and sound/letter association with LiPS® (McIntyre, Protz, & McQuarrie, 2008)
  • LiPS® and Earobics® show increased phonemic awareness after 6 weeks of intervention, but no differences in reading and language found (Pokorni, Worthington, & Jamison, 2004)
  • Changes in brain structure/function related to remedial instruction and response to intervention(Eden et al., 2004; Simos et al., 2002)

Additional Web-Based Materials and Links

Orton-Gillingham

Authors: Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham

Assessment and Intervention Material Described on Website

Teachers incorporate five components for effective reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency, and comprehension) into their lesson plans.

  • Stage 1 Training includes phonemic awareness, multi-sensory strategies for reading, writing and spelling, syllabication patterns for encoding/decoding, reciprocal teaching for reading comprehension, multi-sensory techniques for sight words, student assessment techniques
  • Stage 2 Training includes encoding and decoding with morphemes, higher level lesson planning, Greek and Latin roots, vocabulary, writing and grammar.

Approach based on theory, knowledge, and practice with over 70 years of validation

REVIEW OF ORTON-GILLINGHAM

  • An approach; not a method, program, system, or technique; several commercial reading programs are based on the Orton-Gillingham approach
  • Instructional approach intended primarily for use with persons who have difficulty with reading, spelling, and writing, but can be used for all learners
  • One-to-one, small group, or classroom instruction based on learner need
  • Effective for primary, elementary, intermediate, secondary, college, and adult levels
  • Approach has explicit focus for persons with language processing problems associated with specific learning disabilities
  • Neuroimaging research shows that language-based and multi-sensory approach to teaching and learning, can help compensate for processing deficits affecting reading
  • Structured, sequential, and cumulative approach
  • Flexibility in diagnostic approach (instructor continuously monitors problems and progress of student) and prescriptive approach (diagnostic information informs planning for future lessons), so good for linking assessment to intervention
  • Programs typically focused on word analysis level, and is quite effective for children with LDs in this area; higher level comprehension areas may or may not be addressed sufficiently

Research supporting Orton-Gillingham Approach

  • Positive effect on both reading and spelling for both remedial and non-remedial classes following Orton-Gillingham multisensory approach (Vickery et al., 1997)
  • Improved phonological awareness, word decoding, and reading comprehension in inner city children (Joshi, Dahlgren, & Boulware-Gooden, 2002)
  • Positive effects in word reading, word attack/decoding, spelling, and reading comprehension across settings, including students with and without LDs; positive effects also noted in college-aged students with LDs (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006)
  • Improved phonemic awareness and alphabetic skills with 30 minutes of supplemental instruction per day, with Hispanic females showing greatest alphabetic principle gains (Scheffel, Shaw, & Shaw, 2008)
  • Approach more effective than FastForward (Click here to access this resource.) in word attack skills, but similar for increasing phonemic awareness (Hook, Macaruso, & Jones, 2001)
  • Significant gains in phoneme awareness and reading outcomes for language delayed individuals (Warrick et al., 1993)
  • Ritchey and Goeke (2006) review several studies, reporting positive and equivocal findings, suggesting more research is needed (Click here to access this resource in PDF.)

Additional Web-Based Materials and Links

Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)

Authors: Doug Fuchs, PhD, Lynn Fuchs, PhD, Vanderbilt University

Assessment and Intervention Material Described on Website

  • Kindergarten PALS  includes letter-sound correspondence, decoding, phonological awareness, and sight words.
  • Grades 1 – 6 PALS includes decoding, reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Activities include Partner Reading, Paragraph Shrinking, Prediction Relay, and Re-telling
  • High School PALS is similar but uses age-appropriate motivational and helping strategies.

REVIEW OF PALS

  • Structured, peer-mediated learning activities
  • Preschool-Grade 6 and High School
  • Students assigned to pairs; take turns as “coaches” and “players”
  • Increases student engagement while decreasing direct teaching burden
  • Includes many teaching materials, but also uses authentic content such as library books or short stories
  • 3-4 times /week for 30-35 min depending on grade for K-6, 5X/week @ 25 minutes for HS

Research Supporting PALS:

  • PALS was found to have positive effects on reading fluency and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities (Fuchs et al., 1997; Gersten et al., 2001), equally well in English Language Learner populations (Saenz et al., 2005)
  • PALS improved vocabulary recognition compared to controls (Zarei & Naamaei, 2014).
  • Positive effects on phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, letter recognition, print awareness, and phonics (Stein et al., 2008) and reading comprehension (Mathes & Babyak, 2001; Stein et al., 2008), and all areas of reading achievement (Calhoon, 2005)
  • PALS better at improving reading comprehension than reading fluency in high school population (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999)
  • Children in PALS classes more socially accepted and enjoy similar social status (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Martinez, 2002)
  • PALS non-responders randomly assigned to individualized modified PALS not as effective as adult one-on-one instruction (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005)
  • PALS leads to better reading skills and attention when supplemental intervention offered, but those with inattentive problems did not become better readers (Dion et al., 2011) as attention mediates responsiveness (Miller et al., 2014)
  • PALS is quite valuable for children with LDs in reading in inclusive classrooms, less stigmatizing; could extend program “down” to earlier grades for older children with LDs where they “teach” younger children skills they are learning, furthering self-esteem, confidence, and repeated practice for automaticity

Additional Web-Based Material and Link

Read Naturally

Authors: Candyce Ihnot and Tom Ihnot

Assessment and Intervention Material Described on Website

  • Benchmark Assessor Live
  • Quick Phonics Screener
  • Reading Fluency Progress Monitor
  • Read Naturally Live (Web-Based/iPad Ready)
  • Read Naturally Encore (Print/CD)
  • One Minute Reader (iPad App)
  • Read Naturally GATE (Small-Group Instruction)
  • Word Warm-ups
  • Take Aim! at Vocabulary
  • Signs for Sounds
  • Funēmics

REVIEW OF READ NATURALLY

  • Individual and small group instruction largely to build reading fluency
  • Programs target kindergarten to grade 8
  • Combines strategies of teacher-modeling, repeated reading, progress monitoring
  • Individualizes instruction and improves reading proficiency
  • Variety of intervention programs including web-based, ipad, books & cd’s
  • Uses audio support, progress tracking, high-interest material
  • Improves fluency, vocabulary and comprehension
  • May be most useful for children with receptive/expressive language, rapid naming, working memory causes for their reading LD

Research Supporting Read Naturally

  • Positive effects on reading fluency and writing for students with learning disabilities (Chenault et al., 2006)
  • Effectiveness for the adolescent population (not identified with a learning disability) in general literacy achievement (Heistad, 2008)
  • Positive effects on reading fluency and accuracy in general population (Christ & Davie, 2009; Tucker & Jones, 2010)
  • Use with Phono-Graphix (Click here to access this resource.) program in Tiers 1 and 2 approach led to better word reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006)
  • Normalizing of brain function and improved reading in adequate responders (Simos et al., 2007)

Additional Web-Based Materials and Links

Introducing Read Live Video

Evidence Based Interventions for General Population (not necessarily identified with LDs)

  • Review of research evaluating the effectiveness of Read 180 for the general adolescent population identifies positive effects on reading comprehension and general literacy skills (WWC, 2009).
  • Lexia Reading was found to have positive effects on alphabetics and comprehension for the beginning reading population (Gale, 2006; Macaruso, Hook, & McCabe, 2006; Macaruso & Walker, 2008).
  • Earobics®was found to have positive effects on alphabetics and reading fluency (Gale, D., 2006, Rehmann, R., 2005, and Valliath, S., 2002).
  • Wilson Reading System®was found to have positive effects on alphabetics (Torgesen et al, 2006).
  • Reading Recovery®was found to have positive effects on general reading achievement, alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning readers (WWC, 2013).
  • Process Assessment for Learner-II (Reading and Writing) (Berninger et al., 2010; Berninger & May, 2011) extensive academic, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging NICHD research for both assessment and evidence-based interventions, largely carried out by investigator team.

References

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141-163.

Berninger, V. W., & May, M. O. M. (2011). Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment for specific learning disabilities involving impairments in written and/or oral language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 167-183.

Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 424-433.

Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Effects of prior attention training on    child dyslexics’ response to composition instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1),    243–260.

Christ, T. J., Davie, J. (2009) Empirical Evaluation of Read Naturally Effects: A Randomized Control(RCT).

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447-466.

Dion, E., Roux, C., Landry, D., Fuchs, D., Wehby, J., & Dupéré, V. (2011). Improving attention and preventing reading difficulties among low-income first-graders: A randomized study. Prevention Science, 12(1), 70-79.

Eden, G. F., Jones, K. M., Cappell, K., Gareau, L., Wood, F. B., Zeffiro, T. A., ... & Flowers, D. L. (2004). Neural changes following remediation in adult developmental dyslexia. Neuron, 44(3), 411-422.

Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., & Snyder, L. E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 835-853.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. A. (2002). Preliminary Evidence on the Social Standing of Students with Learning Disabilities in PALS and No–PALS Classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(4), 205-215.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 309-318.

Fuchs. D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Srtategies: making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.

Gale, D. (2006). The effect of computer-derived phonological awareness training on the early literacy skills of students identified as at-risk for reading failure. Retrieved May, 2014 from the University of South Florida website: http://purl.fcla.edu/usf/dc/et/SFE0001531.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.

Hook, P. E., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties—A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 73-96.

Joshi, R. M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading through multi-sensory approach in an inner city school. Annals of Dyslexia,53(2), 235-251.

Macaruso, P., & Walker, A., (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29(3), 266-287.

Macaruso, P., Hook, P.E., & McCabe, R. (2006). The efficacy of computer-based supplementary phonics programs for advancing reading skills in at-risk elementary students. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2), 162-172.

Mathes, P. G., & Babyak, A. E. (2001). The effects of Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies for first-grade readers with and without additional mini-skills lessons. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16 (1), 28–44.

McIntyre, L., Protz, S., & McQuarrie, L. (2008). Exploring the potential of LiPS instruction for beginning readers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 36, 18–48.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional children, 71(4), 445-463.

Miller, A. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Kearns, D., Zhang, W., ... & Kirchner, D. P. (2014). Behavioral Attention: A Longitudinal Study of Whether and How It Influences the Development of Word Reading and Reading Comprehension Among At-Risk Readers. Journal of research on educational effectiveness, 7(3), 232-249.

Pokorni, J.L., Worthington, C.K., & Jamison, P.J. (2004). Phonological awareness intervention: Comparison of Fast ForWord, Earobics, and LiPS. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 147–157.

Rehmann, R. (2005). The effect of Earobics (TM) Step 1, software on student acquisition of phonological awareness skills. Dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(07A), 157–2533. (UMI No. 3181124)

Ritchey, K.D.; Goeke, J.L. (2006).Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham Based Reading Instruction: A            Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education 40 (3): 171–183.

Saenz, L., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231-247.

Scheffel, D. L., Shaw, J. C., & Shaw, R. (2008). The efficacy of a supplementary multisensory reading program for first-grade students. Journal of Reading Improvement, 45(3), 139-152.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., ... & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training.Neurology, 58(8), 1203-1213.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Sarkari, S., Billingsley, R. L., Denton, C., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2007). Altering the brain circuits for reading through intervention: a magnetic source imaging study. Neuropsychology, 21(4), 485.

Stein, M. L., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Sáenz, L., Yen, L., & Compton, D. L. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy      Analysis, 30(4), 368–388.

Stockard, J. (2010). Promoting reading achievement and countering the “fourth-grade slump”: The impact of Direct Instruction on reading achievement in fifth grade. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15(3), 218-240.

Torgesen, J., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S.,Mansfield, W., et al. (2006). National Assessment of Title I interim report—Volume II: Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.html.

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.

Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K. , & 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 (1), 33.

Tucker, C. & Jones, D. (2010). Response to intervention: Increasing fluency, rate, and accuracy for students at risk for reading failure. National Forum of Educational Administration and       Supervision Journal, 28, 28-47.

Valliath, S. (2002). An evaluation of a computer-based phonological awareness training program: Effects on phonological awareness, reading and spelling. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(04), 1291A. (UMI No. 3050601)

Vickery, K., Reynolds, V., & Cochrane, S. (1997). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-Gillingham based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 1, pp 189-200.

Warrick, N., Rubin, H., & Rowe-Walsh, S. (1993). Phoneme awareness in language-delayedchildren: comparative studies and intervention. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 1, pp 153-173.

What Works Clearinghouse (2009).Adolescent Literacy, Read 180. Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of Education.

What Works Clearinghouse (2010b) Students with Learning Disabilities. Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®). Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of Education.

What Works Clearinghouse (2013). Reading Recovery. Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of Education.

Zarei, A. A., & Naamaei, F. (2014). The Effect of Pre-task Activity Types (SRE, PALS, and CSR) on L2 Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Recognition and Recall. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1996-2003.