Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 14 November 2018see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Genevieve McArthur

    Correspondence to: Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    [email protected]

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Yumi Sheehan

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Nicholas A Badcock

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Deanna A Francis

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Hua‐Chen Wang

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Saskia Kohnen

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Erin Banales

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Thushara Anandakumar

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Eva Marinus

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Anne Castles

    Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Contributions of authors

All review authors were involved in designing the methodology; in extracting, analysing, and reporting data; and in checking and revising content of this review. As mentioned previously, review authors who were also authors on two included studies did not assess these studies for eligibility, extract data, or assess the risk of bias or the quality of the evidence.

The first author of the review, GMcA, is the guarantor.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Macquarie University, Australia.

    Funds for the salaries of McArthur, Castles, Larsen, and Marinus

External sources

  • National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant (488518), Australia.

    Funds the salaries of Kohnen, Jones, and Banales

  • Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project Grant (DP0879556), Australia.

    Funds for the salaries of McArthur, Anandakumar, and Larsen

Declarations of interest

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

We are extremely and eternally grateful for the help provided by the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems editors on this updated review, as well as on the original review. In particular, we would like to thank Geraldine Macdonald (updated and previous review), Joanne Duffield (updated review), Margaret Anderson (updated and previous review), Laura MacDonald (previous review), and Nuala Livingstone (previous review). We would also like to thank the statistician and external reviewers of the protocol and review, including this updated version; and we would like to acknowledge the efforts of three contributors to the previous version of the review (Pip Eve, Kristy Jones, and Linda Larsen). Finally, we would like to thank the authors of the studies included in this review for responding so willingly to repeated requests for information.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2018 Nov 14

Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers

Review

Genevieve McArthur, Yumi Sheehan, Nicholas A Badcock, Deanna A Francis, Hua‐Chen Wang, Saskia Kohnen, Erin Banales, Thushara Anandakumar, Eva Marinus, Anne Castles

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3

2012 Dec 12

Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers

Review

Genevieve McArthur, Philippa M Eve, Kristy Jones, Erin Banales, Saskia Kohnen, Thushara Anandakumar, Linda Larsen, Eva Marinus, Hua‐Chen Wang, Anne Castles

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub2

2011 May 11

Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers

Protocol

Genevieve McArthur, Anne Castles, Saskia Kohnen, Linda Larsen, Kristy Jones, Thushara Anandakumar, Erin Banales

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009115

Differences between protocol and review

  1. In the Authors section, we replaced three authors (Pip Eve, Kristy Jones, and Linda Larsen) with three new review authors (YS, NS, and DF).

  2. In the Review information section, we updated the name of one institution (the ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders was previously called the Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science).

  3. Description of the condition

    1. We removed 'Figure 3' of the dual route model.

  4. Description of the intervention

    1. We provided a clearer definition of phonics training: "Phonics teaches people to read via phonics‐based reading, which depends upon the abilities to: identify each letter or letter‐cluster in a word (e.g. S H I P); transpose each letter or letter cluster into its correct speech sound ('sh' 'i' 'p') using the letter‐sound rules; and blend these speech sounds into a word that can be said aloud ('ship')".

  5. Description of the intervention and How the intervention might work

    1. We provided a clearer explanation for why it is important to review simple phonics training programmes rather than complex programmes.

  6. Types of participants

    1. We clarified the inclusion criteria: "This review included studies that were conducted with poor readers who spoke English as their primary language at school or work, who lived in a country where English was the official language, and who were receiving phonics instruction in English."

  7. Types of outcome measures

    1. We renamed regular word accuracy as mixed/regular word reading accuracy as most studies that tested fluency using regular words included irregular words in the same test.

    2. We renamed regular word fluency as mixed/regular word reading fluency as all studies that tested fluency using regular words included irregular words in the same test.

    3. We merged 'spoken word production' and 'other phoneme awareness abilities' into 'phonological output' since these skills are tested with similar measures (i.e. phoneme awareness tests).

    4. We did not include one primary outcome (irregular word reading fluency) and four secondary outcomes (letter identification, parsing, blending, phoneme awareness) in either version of this review because no studies reported data for these measures.

    5. Regarding timing of outcome assessment, all studies identified by this review reported data for outcomes immediately after training. Therefore, we had no data for the following time points: one to six months after training; seven to 18 months after training; or more than 18 months after training.

  8. Electronic searches

    1. On the advice of our Cochrane Information Specialist, we replaced a series of 'free' but unproductive sources (DART Europe E‐theses Portal, Australasian Digital Theses Program, Education Research Theses, Electronic Theses Online Service, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations; Theses Canada portal, www.dissertation.com, and www.thesisabstracts.com), with ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

    2. On the advice of our Cochrane Information Specialist, we searched the ISRCTN registry because the metaRegister of Controlled Trials is under review.

    3. On the advice of our university librarian, when we searched ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, we only included studies that were published in English since our focus was English‐speaking poor readers.

  9. Data synthesis

    1. In our protocol, McArthur 2011, we planned to synthesise similar types of poor readers (mixed, phonological, surface, unknown). However, the studies included in this review predominantly had mixed poor reading rather than phonological or surface dyslexia.

  10. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

    1. As with the previous version of this review (McArthur 2012), we did not conduct subgroup analyses of "poor‐reading profile" and "spoken language" because no study provided relevant data to divide the studies into appropriate subgroups.

    2. We chose not to report the results of our five subgroup analyses because no subgroup included more than nine studies (most only comprised two to seven studies), and the heterogeneity of data with most subgroups (particularly the larger ones) was high (i.e. I2 greater than 70; see Subgroup analyses under Effects of interventions).

Notes

None.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Adolescent; Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Male;

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Study flow diagram.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Study flow diagram.

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Treatment versus control random‐effects model, outcome: 1.1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Treatment versus control random‐effects model, outcome: 1.1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 7 Spelling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 7 Spelling.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 9 Phonological output.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model), Outcome 9 Phonological output.

Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 7 Spelling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 7 Spelling.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 9 Phonological output.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model, Outcome 9 Phonological output.

Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 2 Non‐word reading accuracy.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 3 Irregular word reading accuracy.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 5 Non‐word reading fluency.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 6 Reading comprehension.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 7 Spelling.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 7 Spelling.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 8 Letter‐sound knowledge.

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 9 Phonological output.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11), Outcome 9 Phonological output.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Phonics training versus control (no training or alternative training) for English‐speaking poor readers

Phonics training versus control (no training or alternative training) for English‐speaking poor readers

Patient or population: English‐speaking poor readers

Setting: English‐speaking countries

Intervention: phonics

Comparison: control (no training or alternative training)

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks (SMD* 95% CI*)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

N° of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)*

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control (no training or alternative training)

Phonics training

Mixed/regular word reading accuracy

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.51 standard deviations higher (0.13 higher to 0.90 higher)

701 (11 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa

A standard deviation of 0.51 represented a moderate effect between groups.

Phonics training "may improve" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Non‐word reading accuracy

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.67 standard deviations higher (0.26 higher to 1.07 higher)

682 (10 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa

A standard deviation of 0.67 presented a moderate effect between groups.

Phonics training "may improve" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Irregular word reading accuracy

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.84 standard deviations higher (0.30 higher to 1.39 higher)

294 (4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderatea,c

A standard deviation of 0.84 presented a large effect between groups.

Phonics training "probably improves" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Mixed/regular word reading fluency

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.45 standard deviations higher (0.19 higher to 0.72 higher)

224 (4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

A standard deviation of 0.45 presented a moderate effect between groups.

Phonics training "probably improves" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Non‐word reading fluency

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.39 standard deviations higher (0.10 higher to 0.68 higher)

188 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝

Moderateb

A standard deviation of 0.39 presented a moderate effect between groups.

Phonics training "probably improves" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Reading comprehension

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.28 standard deviations higher (0.07 lower to 0.62 higher)

343 (5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa

A standard deviation of 0.28 presented a small effect between groups.

Phonics training "may improve" outcome (Ryan 2016).

Spelling

Assessed with: various scales

Follow‐up: immediate

The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.47 standard deviations higher (0.07 lower to 1.01 higher)

158 (3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa

A standard deviation of 0.47 presented a moderate effect between groups.

Phonics training "may improve" outcome (Ryan 2016).

SMD: standardised mean difference. Different studies used different continuous measures. Thus, effect sizes are reflected by size of phonics training effect as indexed using SMDs. The results are expressed as standard deviation (SD) units. As a general rule, 0.2 SMD represents a small effect size, 0.5 a moderate effect size, and 0.8 a large effect size.

CI: confidence interval.

GRADE: Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to the that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aDowngraded two levels due to very serious imprecision: very wide confidence intervals (greater than 0.6; Schünemann 2011b).
bDowngraded one level due to serious imprecision: wide confidence intervals (0.3 to 0.6; Schünemann 2011b).
cUpgraded one level due to large effect: SMD greater than 0.8 (Ryan 2016).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Phonics training versus control (no training or alternative training) for English‐speaking poor readers
Table 1. Tests used by studies to measure outcomes

Outcomes

Tests

References

Studies

Mixed/regular word

reading accuracy

Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test Revised: Word Identification

Woodcock 1987

Barker 1995

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Second Edition

Wechsler 2001

Blythe 2006

Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery Third Edition: Word Identification

Woodcock 2001

Ford 2009

Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test Revised: Word Identification

Woodcock 1987

Hurford 1994

British Ability Scale: Word Reading

Elliot 1983

Hurry 2007

1 experimental test

Levy 1997

Levy 1997

1 experimental test

Levy 1999

Levy 1999

1 experimental test

Lovett 2000

Lovett 2000

2 experimental tests

(trained and untrained – averaged)

Lovett 1990

Lovett 1990

1 experimental test

Savage 2003

Savage 2003

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation Level 1 Version A:

Word Recognition Assessment

Williams 2010

Chen 2014

Non‐word

reading accuracy

Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test Revised: Word Attack

Woodcock 1987

Barker 1995

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Second Edition

Wechsler 2001

Blythe 2006

Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery Third Edition: Word Attack

Woodcock 2001

Ford 2009

Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test Revised: Word Attack

Woodcock 1987

Hurford 1994

1 experimental test

Levy 1997

Levy 1997

1 experimental test

Levy 1999

Levy 1999

Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test Revised: Word Attack

Woodcock 1987

Lovett 2000

1 experimental test

Savage 2003

Savage 2003

1 experimental test

McArthur 2015a

McArthur 2015a

1 experimental test

McArthur 2015b

McArthur 2015b

Irregular word

reading accuracy

2 experimental tests (trained and untrained – averaged)

Lovett 1990

Lovett 1990

1 experimental test

Lovett 2000

Lovett 2000

1 experimental test

McArthur 2015a

McArthur 2015a

1 experimental test

McArthur 2015b

McArthur 2015b

Mixed/regular word

reading fluency

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Sight Word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

Ford 2009

4 experimental tests (regular and irregular – trained and untrained –

averaged)

Lovett 1990

Lovett 1990

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Sight Word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

McArthur 2015a

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Sight Word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

McArthur 2015b

Non‐word

reading fluency

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Non‐word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

Ford 2009

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Non‐word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

McArthur 2015a

Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Non‐word subtest

Torgesen 1999b

McArthur 2015b

Reading comprehension

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Second Edition

Wechsler 2001

Blythe 2006

Gates‐MacGinitie Reading Test Fourth Edition: Comprehension

MacGinitie 2002

Ford 2009

Neale Analysis of Reading Ability

Neale 1988

Hurry 2007

Test of Everyday Reading Comprehension

McArthur 2013

McArthur 2015a

Test of Everyday Reading Comprehension

McArthur 2013

McArthur 2015b

Spelling

4 experimental tests

(regular and irregular – trained and untrained – averaged)

Lovett 1990

Lovett 1990

1 experimental test

Savage 2003

Savage 2003

1 experimental test

Chen 2014

Chen 2014

Letter‐sound knowledge

2 experimental tests

(trained and untrained – averaged)

Lovett 1990

Lovett 1990

1 experimental test

Savage 2003

Savage 2003

1 experimental test

Savage 2005

Savage 2005

Phonological output

(phoneme awareness tasks)

1 experimental test

Barker 1995

Barker 1995

Goldman Fristoe Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination: Sound analysis

Goldman 1974

Lovett 2000

1 experimental test

Savage 2003

Savage 2003

1 experimental test

Savage 2005

Savage 2005

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Tests used by studies to measure outcomes
Table 2. Effect sizes for random‐effects and fixed‐effect analyses, and heterogeneity for random‐effects analyses

 

Outcome

 

N°of studies

 

N°of participants

Random‐effects model

Heterogeneity

Fixed‐effect model

SMD (95% CI)

Z

P

Chi2

P

I2 (%)

SMD (95% CI)

Z

P

Mixed/regular word reading accuracy

11

701

0.51 (0.13 to 0.90)

2.59

0.01

52.11

< 0.001

81

0.48 (0.32 to 0.64)

5.78

< 0.001

Non‐word reading accuracy

10

682

0.67 (0.26 to 1.07)

3.24

0.001

50.72

< 0.001

82

0.68 (0.51 to 0.84)

8.03

< 0.001

Irregular word reading accuracy

4

294

0.84 (0.30 to 1.39)

3.04

0.002

14.41

0.002

79

0.82 (0.58 to 1.07)

6.66

0.002

Mixed/regular word reading fluency

4

224

0.45 (–0.19 to 0.72)

3.33

< 0.001

2.20

0.53

0

0.45 (0.19 to 0.72)

3.33

< 0.001

Non‐word reading fluency

3

188

0.39 (0.10 to 0.68)

2.63

0.009

0.02

0.99

0

0.39 (0.10 to 0.68)

2.63

0.009

Reading comprehension

5

343

0.28 (–0.07 to 0.62)

1.54

0.12

8.45

0.08

53

0.23 (0.01 to 0.45)

2.07

0.040

Spelling

3

158

0.47 (–0.07 to 1.01)

1.72

0.09

3.89

0.14

49

0.28 (–0.09 to 0.65)

1.49

0.14

Letter‐sound knowledge

3

192

0.35 (0.04 to 0.65)

2.22

0.03

0.11

0.95

0

0.35 (0.04 to 0.65)

2.22

0.03

Phonological output

4

280

0.38 (–0.04 to 0.80)

1.77

0.08

7.97

0.05

62

0.44 (0.19 to 0.70)

3.45

< 0.001

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference.

Figures and Tables -
Table 2. Effect sizes for random‐effects and fixed‐effect analyses, and heterogeneity for random‐effects analyses
Table 3. Characteristics of participants in each study

Study

Location

Group N°in analyses

Age

Gender

IQ

Ethnicity

SES

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Population

Barker 1995

USA

Intervention: 18

Control: 18

Mean not reported

SD not reported

Range 6.2–7.8 years

Not reported

Verbal

Mean 16.5

SD 2.36

Range 11–22

Not reported

Not reported

Students nominated by teachers from 2 elementary schools who were given a short series of pretests assessing phonological awareness skills and basic word recognition skills. These children were then given further 2 tests and those scoring below the 40th percentile and the 50th percentile on the subsequent test were selected.

None stated

First‐grade students

Blythe 2006

Australia

Intervention: 10

Control: 10

Mean 101.5 months

SD 17.58 months

Range not reported

Male: 75%

Female: 25%

FSIQ‐2

Mean 100.15

SD 9.38

Range not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Children who received group‐based remedial reading instruction at school and were referred by a support teacher.

After referral children completed the WISC‐III FSIQ. Those who scored < 20th percentile were excluded.

Dyslexic primary school students

Chen 2014

Canada

Intervention: 9

Control: 9

Mean 7.06 years

SD 0.24 years

Range 7–8 years

Male: 39%

Female: 61%

Mean 19.79

SD not reported

Range not reported

Bilingual speakers of English and French

Not reported

Students considered to be 'at‐risk readers' who fall 1 SD below mean on the GRADE (standardised test)

None stated

Second‐grade students

Ford 2009

USA

Intervention: 9

Control: 9

Mean 16.18 years

SD not reported

Range not reported

Male: 55%

Female: 45%

Not reported

22% African‐American, 67% Hispanic, 11% White

Lower

Students who were enrolled in the remedial reading programme were invited to participate. Below mean reading skills were based on the ISAT.

None stated

Teenagers enrolled at an alternative high school, that is, a high school for non‐special education students or students at risk of dropping out.

Hurford 1994

USA

Intervention: 25

Control: 25

Mean 80.35

months

SD not reported

Range not reported

Male: 48%

Female: 52%

Mean 90.37

SD not reported

Range not reported

92.8% white, 6% African‐American, 5% Hispanic, 7% Asian‐American

Middle

Classification data from Hurford 1993 was used with more relaxed criteria for eligibility, that is standard scores in reading of < 91 were included rather than < 86.

None stated

Children at risk of reading disability

Hurry 2007

UK

Intervention: 92

Control: 43

Mean not reported

SD not reported

Range 6–6.6 years

Male: 61%

Female:

39%

Mean not reported

SD not reported

Range 92–96

16% spoke English as a second language

42% of the sample were eligible for free school meals.

In 63 schools, the 6 poorest year 2 readers were selected on the basis of their Diagnostic Survey (Clay 1985) performance. Of the 22 schools using Reading Recovery, the poorest scorers were offered intervention.

The remaining children, that is, those less poor at reading then those that were selected for the experimental condition, were assigned to a within school condition.

Children with reading difficulties

Levy 1997

Canada

Intervention: 75

Control: 25

Mean not reported

SD not reported

Range 5.9–7.2 years

Male: 48%

Female:

52%

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Children were given word reading tests, children that read < 7 words on any of the screening tests were selected.

None stated

All children from Grade 1 and senior kindergarten from 2 schools, whose parents consented to their participation.

Levy 1999

Canada

Intervention: 64

Control: 32

Mean 7.7 years

SD not reported

Range not reported

Male: 56%

Female:

44%

Non‐verbal

Experimental group:

Mean 10.88

SD not reported

Range not reported

Control group:

Mean 10.65

SD not reported

Range not reported

Mixed racial distribution

Covers all SES

Children were given a word identification test (WRAT‐3), if they scored < 90 they were given another word identification test (WRMT) and if they read below half a grade below their grade level and read no more than 15 of the training words then they were included in the sample.

None stated

17 schools participated in the screening process with permission for participation obtained from the board, schools and a parent or guardian

Lovett 1990

Canada

Intervention: 18

Control: 18

Mean 8.4 years

SD 1.6 years

Range 7–13 years

Male: 70.4%

Female:

29.6%

Verbal

Mean 98.4

SD 10.6

Range not reported

Performance

Mean 106.2

SD 12.6

Range not reported

Not reported

Middle

Children had to score < 25th percentile on at least 4 of 5 reading measures used in the screening test and have at least low mean intelligence.

Children with English as a second language, history of extreme hyperactivity, hearing impairment, brain damage, a chronic medical condition, serious emotional disturbance, or attention deficits.

Children referred to the Learning Disabilities Reading Program.

Lovett 2000

Canada

Intervention: 51

Control: 37

Mean 9.9 years

SD 1.6 years

Range 7–13 years

Male: 68.1%

Female: 31.9%

Verbal

Mean 92

SD 13.7

Range 58–133

Performance

Mean 98.7

SD 14.3

Range 63–136

Not reported

Not reported

Children needed to demonstrate a 'substantial underachievement' on 4 of the 5 reading based screening assessments.

None stated

Children with severe reading disabilities that were referred to the Clinical Research Unit for remediation.

McArthur 2015a

Australia

Intervention: 39

Control: 39

Mean 9.42 years

SD 1.71 years

Range 7–12 years

Male: 63.8%

Female: 36.2%

Non‐verbal

Group 1:

Mean 97.50

SD 14.16

Range not reported

Group 2:

Mean 95.56

SD 17.12

Range not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Children who scored below the mean range for their age on the Castles and Coltheart irregular word reading test and/or non‐word reading test.

History of neurological or sensory impairment; non‐English speakers.

Children with reading difficulties

McArthur 2015b

Australia

Intervention: 46

Control: 46

Group 1:

Mean 9.53 years

SD 1.51 years

Range 7–12 years

Group 2:

Mean 9.58 years

SD 1.45 years

Range 7–12 years

Male: 46.3% Female: 53.7%

Non‐verbal

Group 1:

Mean 97.02

SD 15.75

Range not reported

Group 2:

Mean 95.57

SD 1.65

Range not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Children who scored below the mean range for their age on the Castles and Coltheart irregular word reading test and/or non‐word reading test.

History of neurological or sensory impairment; non‐English speakers.

Children with reading difficulties

Savage 2003

UK

Intervention: 78

Control: 26

Mean 5.9 years

SD not reported

Range 5–6.3 years

Male: 60%

Female: 40%

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Over 2 sessions a series of reading‐ and spelling‐based assessments were used to find the poorest readers in year 1 of the school. The lowest performers were recruited.

A teacher identifying a child as being too immature to deal with working in small groups.

Children with the lowest reading performance for their age within a Local Education Authority or School District

Savage 2005

UK

Intervention: 26

Control: 26

Not reported

 

Male: 50%

Female: 50%

Not reported

Not reported

Lower

Over 2 sessions a series of reading‐ and spelling‐based assessments were used to find the poorest readers in year 1 of the school. The lowest performers were recruited.

None stated

Children with the lowest reading performance for their age within a Local Education Authority or School District

FSIQ: Full Scale Intelligence Quotient; IQ: intelligence quotient; ISAT: Illinois State Achievement Test; SD: standard deviation; SES: socioeconomic status; WISC: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; WRAT: Wide Range Achievement Test; WRMT: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.

Figures and Tables -
Table 3. Characteristics of participants in each study
Table 4. Allocation of studies to different subgroups (categories)

 Subgroups

Barker 1995

Blythe 2006

Chen 2014

Ford 2009

Hurford 1994

Hurry 2007

Levy 1997

Levy 1999

Lovett 1990

Lovett 2000

McArthur 2015a

McArthur 2015b

Savage 2003

Savage 2005

Training type

 

 

Phonics only

X

X

X

X

X

Phonics + phoneme awareness

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Phonics + sight words

X

X

Training intensity

 

< 2 hours/week

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

≥ 2 hours/week

X

X

X

X

Training duration

 

< 3 months

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

≥ 3 months

X

X

Training group size

 

1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

≤ 5

X

X

X

X

X

X

Training administrator

 

Human

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Computer

X

X

X

X

X

X

Figures and Tables -
Table 4. Allocation of studies to different subgroups (categories)
Table 5. Results of subgroup analyses

 Outcome 

Subgroups

N°studies/

measures

participants

Mean effect size

Heterogeneity

Subgroup analyses

SMD (95% CI)

Z

P

Chi2

P

I2 (%)

Chi2

DF

P

I2(%)

Mixed/regular word reading accuracy

Training type

 

Phonics only

3

232

0.94 (–0.09 to 1.97)

1.79

0.07

21.83

< 0.001

91

Phonics + phoneme awareness

6

415

0.17 (–0.04 to 0.37)

1.61

0.11

4.35

0.50

0

Phonics + sight word

2

54

0.73 (0.18 to 1.29)

2.58

0.01

0.61

0.43

0

5.22

2

0.07

61.70

Training intensity

 

< 2 hours/week

9

577

0.54 (0.06 to 1.02)

2.19

0.03

50.68

< 0.001

84

≥ 2 hours/week

2

124

0.34 (–0.02 to 0.70)

1.87

0.06

0.71

0.40

0

0.42

1

0.52

0

Training duration

 

< 3 months

9

516

0.61 (0.17 to 1.05)

2.70

0.007

38.25

< 0.001

79

≥ 3 months

2

185

0.12 (–0.43 to 0.67)

0.42

0.67

2.80

0.09

64

1.84

1

0.17

45.80

Training group size

 

1

6

419

0.62 (–0.06 to 1.29)

1.78

0.07

44.35

< 0.001

89

≤ 5

5

282

0.33 (0.04 to 0.61)

2.24

0.02

4.94

0.29

19

0.59

1

0.44

0

Training administrator

 

Human

7

577

0.70 (0.17 to 1.23)

2.57

0.01

46.63

< 0.001

87

Computer

4

124

0.18 (–0.20 to 0.51)

1.00

0.32

2.01

0.57

0

2.51

1

0.11

60.20

Non‐word reading accuracy

Training type

 

Phonics only

5

402

0.69 (–0.08 to 1.46)

1.75

0.08

48.66

< 0.001

92

Phonics +

phoneme awareness

5

280

0.63 (0.38 to 0.88)

4.86

< 0.001

1.84

0.77

0

0.02

1

0.89

0

Training group size

 

1

7

454

0.83 (0.31 to 1.36)

3.10

0.002

37.34

< 0.001

84

≤ 5

3

228

0.32 (–0.32 to 0.96)

0.97

0.33

9.64

0.008

79

1.47

1

0.23

31.80

Training administrator

 

Human

4

388

1.12 (0.48 to 1.76)

3.42

< 0.001

22.23

< 0.001

87

Computer

6

294

0.31 (–0.02 to 0.64)

1.85

0.06

8.81

0.12

43

4.84

1

0.03

79.40

CI: confidence interval; DF: degrees of freedom; SMD: standardised mean difference.

Figures and Tables -
Table 5. Results of subgroup analyses
Table 6. Quality of evidence ratings for primary and secondary outcomes (based on Ryan 2016)

Outcome

Study quality

RCT = high
Non‐RCT = low

Risk of biasa

No = 0
Serious = –1
Very serious = –2

Inconsistencyb

No = 0
Serious = –1
Very serious = –2

Indirectness

No = 0
Serious = –1
Very serious = –2

Imprecisione

No = 0
Serious = –1
Very serious = –2

Publication biasf

Undetected = 0
Strongly suspected = –1

Other

Large effect = + 1
Dose effect = + 1
No plausible confound = + 1

GRADE

Mixed/regular word reading accuracy

High

No = 0

No = 0c

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

Non‐word reading accuracy

High

No = 0

No = 0c

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

Irregular word reading accuracy

High

No = 0

No = 0c

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Large effect = + 1

Moderate

Mixed/regular word reading fluency

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Serious = –1

Undetected = 0

Moderate

Non‐word reading fluency

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Serious = –1

Undetected = 0

Moderate

Reading comprehension

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

Spelling

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

Letter‐sound knowledge

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

Phonological output

High

No = 0

No = 0d

No = 0

Very serious = –2

Undetected = 0

Low

a Judged 'no' if 75% + studies contributing to an outcome are low in majority of biases. Judged 'serious' if 50% to 74% of studies contributing to an outcome are low in majority of biases. Judged 'very serious' if fewer than 50% studies contributing to an outcome are low in majority of biases. See 'Risk of bias' Figure 1 and 'Risk of bias' tables for bias ratings for each study.
b Judged 'no' if I2 less than 70%d OR I2 greater than 70% but assessment of heterogeneity analysis suggests it did not affect the reliability of resultsc (see Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity). Judged 'serious' if I2 = 70% to 85%; judged 'very serious' if I2 greater than 85%.
e Judged 'no' if confidence interval 0 to 0.3. Judged 'serious' if confidence interval 0.3 to 0.6. Judged 'very serious' if confidence interval 0.6 + (Schünemann 2011b).
f Judged 'undetected' if funnel plot done on more than 10 studies (Sterne 2011), and no bias detected. Judged 'unsuspected' if funnel plot not constructed (too few studies) but bias not strongly suspected. Judged 'strong suspected' if funnel plot not possible (too few studies) and bias strongly suspected.

Figures and Tables -
Table 6. Quality of evidence ratings for primary and secondary outcomes (based on Ryan 2016)
Comparison 1. Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

11

701

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.13, 0.90]

2 Non‐word reading accuracy Show forest plot

10

682

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.26, 1.07]

3 Irregular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

4

294

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.30, 1.39]

4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency Show forest plot

4

224

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.19, 0.72]

5 Non‐word reading fluency Show forest plot

3

188

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.10, 0.68]

6 Reading comprehension Show forest plot

5

343

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.07, 0.62]

7 Spelling Show forest plot

3

158

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [‐0.07, 1.01]

8 Letter‐sound knowledge Show forest plot

3

192

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.04, 0.65]

9 Phonological output Show forest plot

4

280

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.04, 0.80]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Phonics training versus control (random‐effects model)
Comparison 2. Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

11

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Training type: phonics alone

3

232

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [‐0.09, 1.97]

1.2 Training type: phonics + phoneme awareness

6

415

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.17 [‐0.04, 0.37]

1.3 Training type: phonics + sight words

2

54

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.18, 1.29]

1.4 Training intensity: < 2 hours/week

9

577

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.06, 1.02]

1.5 Training intensity: ≥ 2 hours/week

2

124

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐0.02, 0.70]

1.6 Training duration: < 3 months

9

516

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.61 [0.17, 1.05]

1.7 Training duration: ≥ 3 months

2

185

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.43, 0.67]

1.8 Training group size: 1‐on‐1

6

419

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [‐0.06, 1.29]

1.9 Training group size: small group (≤ 5)

5

282

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 0.61]

1.10 Training administrator: human

7

577

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.17, 1.23]

1.11 Training administrator: computer

4

124

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐0.17, 0.54]

2 Non‐word reading accuracy Show forest plot

10

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Training type: phonics alone

5

402

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [‐0.08, 1.46]

2.2 Training type: phonics + phoneme awareness

5

280

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.38, 0.88]

2.3 Training group size: 1‐on‐1

7

454

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.83 [0.31, 1.36]

2.4 Training group size: small group (≤ 5)

3

228

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.32 [‐0.32, 0.96]

2.5 Training administrator: human

4

388

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.12 [0.48, 1.76]

2.6 Training administrator: computer

6

294

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.02, 0.64]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Phonics training versus control: subgroup analyses (random‐effects model)
Comparison 3. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

11

701

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.32, 0.64]

2 Non‐word reading accuracy Show forest plot

10

682

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.51, 0.84]

3 Irregular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

4

294

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.58, 1.07]

4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency Show forest plot

4

224

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.19, 0.72]

5 Non‐word reading fluency Show forest plot

3

188

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.10, 0.68]

6 Reading comprehension Show forest plot

5

343

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.01, 0.45]

7 Spelling Show forest plot

2

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [‐0.09, 0.65]

8 Letter‐sound knowledge Show forest plot

3

192

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.04, 0.65]

9 Phonological output Show forest plot

4

280

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.19, 0.70]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis using the fixed‐effect model
Comparison 4. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

10

651

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.09, 0.95]

2 Non‐word reading accuracy Show forest plot

9

632

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.24, 1.14]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with Hurford 1994 removed (random‐effects model)
Comparison 5. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

8

645

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.07, 1.00]

2 Non‐word reading accuracy Show forest plot

8

644

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.20, 1.11]

3 Irregular word reading accuracy Show forest plot

4

294

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.30, 1.39]

4 Mixed/regular word reading fluency Show forest plot

3

206

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.22, 0.78]

5 Non‐word reading fluency Show forest plot

2

170

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.08, 0.69]

6 Reading comprehension Show forest plot

3

305

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [‐0.15, 0.64]

7 Spelling Show forest plot

2

140

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.36 [‐0.27, 0.99]

8 Letter‐sound knowledge Show forest plot

3

192

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.04, 0.65]

9 Phonological output Show forest plot

4

280

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [‐0.04, 0.80]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Phonics training versus control: sensitivity analysis with small studies removed (n < 11)