Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 December 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 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: ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Philippa M Eve

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Kristy Jones

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Erin Banales

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Saskia Kohnen

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Thushara Anandakumar

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Linda Larsen

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Eva Marinus

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Hua‐Chen Wang

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

  • Anne Castles

    ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Contributions of authors

All authors have been involved in designing the methodology; in extracting, analysing, and reporting data, and in checking and revising content.

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

All authors are currently involved in an quasi‐RCT that is comparing the effect of phonics training versus sight‐word training in children with developmental dyslexia. There are no other conflicts of interest. Funds from Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) paid a small part of the wages of all the authors except for Anne Castles. These funds were provided for research activities in general, and not specifically for doing this review.

Acknowledgements

We are extremely and eternally grateful for the help provided by the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (CDPLPG) editors on this review. In particular, we would like to thank Laura MacDonald, Geraldine MacDonald, Margaret Anderson, and Nuala Livingstone. We would also like to thank the statistician and external reviewers of the protocol and review. And 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. Two new review authors have been added (Pip Eve and Huachen Wang).

  2. The name of the institution (ARC Centre of Excellence of Cognition and its Disorders) has been updated (previously Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science).

  3. Figure 1 of the dual route model has been removed.

  4. We have revised the Background slightly to (1) improve clarity in general, (2) provide a clearer definition of phonics training, (3) provide a clearer explanation for why it is important to review simple phonics training programmes rather than complex programmes.

  5. The definition of the intervention changed from "phonics training of any duration, intensity or mode of delivery, with or without concomitant training in letter identification, sight‐word reading, or phoneme awareness" to "phonics program that trained reading via the letter‐sound rules alone (phonics only) or with one other type of training (that is, a programme that combined phonics with phoneme awareness or irregular word reading)".

  6. We modified our inclusion criteria for the intervention to include studies where the control group did the same training as the intervention group minus the phonics component (that is, phoneme awareness training or irregular word reading training).

  7. We updated 'Types of participants' to include criteria relating to age, gender, and SES.

  8. In the protocol for this review, we planned to calculate separate effects for accuracy for nonwords, regular words, and irregular words. We also planned to calculate separate effects for fluency for nonwords, regular words, and irregular words. However, given the paucity of data for these separate effects, this review combined measures for regular and irregular word reading accuracy into 'word reading accuracy', and combined regular and irregular word reading fluency into 'word reading fluency', to improve the power of the meta‐analyses of the reading measures.

  9. We had also planned to include letter identification, parsing, and blending in this review. However, no studies reported data for these measures, and so they could not be included in this review.

  10. We merged 'spoken word production' and 'other phoneme awareness abilities' into 'phonological output' since these were tested with similar measures (that is, phoneme awareness tests).

  11. We removed Dissertation Abstract Online from 'Searching other resources' because our institution no longer subscribes to this database.

  12. We modified the list in the 'Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity' section to accurately reflect the seven subgroup analyses planned for this review. This involved (1) removing 'reading skill' as a subgroup (since this moderator was tested by comparing primary and secondary outcomes); (2) adding training duration; (3) redefining concomitant training (letter identification, irregular words, reading fluency, reading comprehension, phoneme awareness, spoken vocabulary) to 'training type (phonics alone, phonics and phoneme awareness, phonics and irregular words). We also changed the terms slightly (for example, 'training' instead of 'treatment') for the sake of clarity.

Notes

None.

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.