a reading interventions and their synthesis of spelling...

A Synthesis of Spelling andReading Interventions and TheirEffects on the Spelling Outcomesof Students With LD

Jeanne Wanzek, Sharon Vaughn, Jade Wexler, Elizabeth A. Swanson,Meghan Edmonds, and Ae-Hwa Kim

Abstract

Previous research studies examining the effects of spelling and reading interventions on the spelling outcomes of students with learningdisabilities (LD) are synthesized. An extensive search of the professional literature between 1995 and 2003 yielded a total of 19 interven-tion studies that provided spelling and reading interventions to students with LD and measured spelling outcomes. Findings revealedthat spelling outcomes were consistently improved following spelling interventions that included explicit instruction with multiple prac-tice opportunities and immediate corrective feedback after the word was misspelled. Furthermore, evidence from spelling interventionsthat employed assistive technology aimed at spelling in written compositions indicated positive effects on spelling outcomes.

pelling correctly is perhaps one ofthe most valued yet difficult skillsin written communication. Spell-

ing requires matching the sounds oflanguage with the appropriate lettersin order to accurately and reliably con-vey messages. A student's ability tospell words correctly shows a sophisti-cated knowledge of letters, sounds,and syllable patterns (Bear & Temple-ton, 1998).

Written English is characterizedby rules of phoneme-grapheme corre-spondence (Nagy, Berninger, Abbott,Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003). Theroles of orthographic knowledge (e.g.,processing written language; letters andletter patterns), phonological knowl-edge (e.g., processing or manipulatingoral language; sounds), and morpho-logical awareness in spelling perfor-mance have been well documented(Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Berninger,Abbott, Thomson, & Raskind, 2001;Green et al., 2003). As a result, spellingis related to reading and written ex-pression. For example, skills associated

with successful reading, such as pho-nological knowledge, also play a rolein spelling (Abbott & Beminger, 1993;Berringer, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson,& Abbott, 1994). More specifically, for-mal instruction in spelling words cor-rectly can have a positive impact onword attack skills and written compo-sitions (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa,2002). Thus, learning to spell correctlyis a key component of a student's aca-demic program.

Many students with learning dis-abilities (LD) struggle with masteringthe phonological structure of languageneeded to map the sounds of languageto print, making reading and spellingquite challenging (Good, Simmons, &Smith, 1998). In fact, spelling is one ofthe most common difficulties for stu-dents with LD (Bos & Vaughn, 2006).Therefore, formal instruction in spell-ing may be necessary for spelling im-provement for many students with LD(Berninger et al., 2002; Graham, 2000).

Three syntheses of effective spell-ing interventions for students with LD

have identified instructional elementsthat can improve spelling outcomes forthese students (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995; Gordon, Vaughn, &Schumm, 1993; McNaughton, Hughes,& Clark, 1994). The reported elementsused to improve spelling can be cate-gorized into (a) features of instruc-tional delivery, (b) computer-assistedinstruction (CAI), (c) multisensorytraining, (d) and study and word prac-tice procedures.

Features of InstructionalDelivery

All three syntheses of spelling inter-ventions (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughtonet al., 1994) recognized the positiveoutcomes from the use of error correc-tion procedures that incorporated errorimitation modeling, in which a teacherreproduces a student's error beforepresenting the correct response. Whenerror imitation analysis and feedback

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIESVOL•UE 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006, PAGES 528-543

were used, students' spelling perfor-mance was enhanced. A second re-ported technique resulting in positiveoutcomes was limiting the number ofwords learned consecutively. Althoughno optimal number has been deter-mined, at least two studies have re-ported benefits to students when limit-ing the number of words consecutivelylearned to three (Bryant, Drabin, &Gettinger, 1981; Gettinger, Bryant, &Fayne, 1982). The use of constant timedelay (i.e., gradually increasing thedelay time before the presentation of acorrect answer to scaffold learning)was also noted in all of the syntheses asassociated with improved spelling out-comes for students with LD.

Computer-AssistedInstruction

Two syntheses (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin, 1995; Gordon et al., 1993)noted positive effects related to the useof CAI. Notably, they found that theconstant time delay instructional tech-nique used in combination with acomputer was advantageous. Overall,using the computer for spelling in-struction was deemed a feasible optiondue to the computer's capability of of-fering direct, personalized instructionfor students with LD. Moreover, CAIwas reported to be associated with in-creased student motivation to learn.

Multisensory Training

The syntheses reported mixed resultsfor studies examining multisensoryspelling instructional techniques, al-though some support was describedfor strategies that included auditorycomponents (e.g., write and saymethod; Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,1995; McNaughton et al., 1994). Gor-don et al. (1993) noted that many stu-dents with LD prefer the use of multi-sensory instructional techniques, suchas the use of a keyboard for practicingspelling.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006

Study and Word PracticeProcedures

Positive effects for the use of system-atic study and word practice proce-dures (e.g., copy the word, cover theword and write, compare) reflected an-other common finding from the threesyntheses (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughtonet al., 1994). McNaughton et al. re-ported that study and word practiceprocedures yielded positive outcomeswhen they were teacher directed aswell as when students were taught touse the practices for independentstudy. Gordon et al. and McNaughtonet al. also reported improved outcomesin spelling from using structured peertutoring.

Each of the syntheses just sum-marized provided valuable informa-tion regarding spelling interventionsthat may improve the spelling achieve-ment of students with LD. However,the last such synthesis of spelling out-comes was published in 1995. Sincethen, a number of intervention studiesexamining spelling outcomes havebeen published. The purpose of this ar-ticle is to provide a comprehensive ex-amination of the literature on spellingoutcomes that has been publishedsince the last synthesis was conductedin 1995. This synthesis is presented toassist practitioners and future re-searchers in better understanding theeffects of spelling and reading inter-ventions on the spelling outcomes forstudents with LD. Specifically, thissynthesis addresses the following re-search question: How effective arespelling and reading interventions inenhancing the spelling outcomes ofstudents with LD in kindergartenthrough 12th grade?

Method

Data Collection

For this synthesis, we conducted acomprehensive search of the literaturethrough a two-step process. We first

529

conducted a computer search of theERIC and PsycINFO databases to lo-cate studies published between 1995and 2003. Descriptors or root forms ofthose descriptors (reading, spelling,writing, read*, spell*, writ*, learningdisabilities, learning dis*, LD, mildhandicaps, reading disabilities, read-ing dis*, writing disabilities, writingdis*, learning disorders, dyslexia, dys-lexic, and dyslex*) were used in vari-ous combinations to capture the great-est possible number of articles. Theinitial search resulted in the identifica-tion of 2,001 articles.

In addition to the computersearch, a hand search of nine majorjournals was conducted from 2001through 2003 to ensure that all studieswere identified. Journals examined inthis hand search included ExceptionalChildren, Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, Journal of Learning Disabilities, TheJournal of Special Education, LearningDisability Quarterly, Learning Disabili-ties Research & Practice, Reading Re-search Quarterly, Remedial and SpecialEducation, and Scientific Studies of Read-ing.

Studies were selected if they metthe following criteria:

1. The study reported that partici-pants were students identifiedas having LD. Studies also wereincluded if disaggregated datawere provided for students withLD, regardless of any otherstudents in the study.

2. Participating students were inGrades K-12.

3. Research designs were treatment-comparison, single-group, orsingle-subject designs.

4. Intervention consisted primarily ofany type of language arts instruc-tion, including spelling, reading,or writing.

5. At least one of the dependent mea-sures assessed one or more aspectsof spelling that included spellingwords in isolation or within con-nected text. When an outcomemeasure combined correct spellingwith another language arts ele-

530

ment, such as capitalization, andthe data related specifically tospelling could not be disaggre-gated, the study was not included(e.g., Zipprich, 1995).

Data Analysis

Coding Procedures. We em-ployed extensive coding procedures toorganize pertinent information fromeach study. We relied on previously de-signed code sheets that were devel-oped for past intervention syntheses(Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004;Vaughn et al., 2003). Further revisionswere made to ensure that the codesheet addressed elements specified inthe What Works Clearinghouse Designand Implementation Assessment Device(Institute of Education Sciences, 2003),a document used to evaluate the qual-ity of studies.

The code sheet was used to recordinformation on variables includingparticipant information, design infor-mation, intervention/comparison in-formation, clarity of causal inference,and reported findings. Participant in-formation was coded using 3 forced-choice items (e.g., socioeconomic sta-tus, exceptionality) and 2 open-endeditems (age as described in text andexceptionality as described in text).Similarly, design information was gath-ered using a combination of forced-choice (e.g., research design, assign-ment, fidelity of implementation) andopen-ended items (selection criteria).Intervention/comparison informationwas coded using 10 open-ended items(e.g., site of intervention, role of personimplementing intervention, durationof intervention). A description of thetreatment and comparison conditionswas also recorded.

Information on the clarity ofcausal inference was gathered using 9items for true experimental designs(e.g., sample sizes, attrition, plausibil-ity of intervention contaminants) and12 items for quasi-experimental de-signs (e.g., equating procedures). Fi-nally, the precision of outcome for botheffect size estimation and statistical re-

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

porting was coded using a series of 8forced-choice, yes/no questions in-cluding information regarding as-sumptions of independence, normal-ity, and equal variance. To calculateeffect sizes, information related to out-come measures, direction of effects,and spelling outcome data for each in-tervention or comparison group wasrecorded.

After extensive training (morethan 8 h) on the use and interpretationof items from the code sheet, interraterreliability was established by havingeach of the four coders independentlycode a single article. Responses fromthe four coders were used to calculatethe percentage agreement (i.e., agree-ments divided by agreements plus dis-agreements). An interrater reliabilityof .94 was achieved. Reliability wasmaintained by independently double-coding all articles. On the few occa-sions in which differences occurred,meetings were held to resolve any dis-agreements in coding, with final deci-sions reached by consensus.

Once the coding had been com-pleted, the studies were summarizedin a table format. Table 1 provides asummary of the features of each inter-vention study. Table 2 provides a de-scription of the intervention and studyfindings. Effect sizes or p values fortreatment-comparison design studiesand single-group design studies are pro-vided. Descriptive findings for single-subject studies are also presented.

Effect Size Calculation. Effectsizes were calculated for treatment-comparison studies and single-groupstudies that provided adequate sta-tistical information. For treatment-comparison design studies, the effectsize d was calculated as the differencebetween the mean posttest score ofthe intervention group minus themean posttest score of the comparisongroup divided by the pooled standarddeviation. For the studies in this syn-thesis that employed a treatment-comparison design, effect sizes can beinterpreted as follows: d = 0.2 small,d = 0.5 medium, and d = 0.8 large

(Cohen, 1988). For single-group stud-ies, a standardized mean-change mea-sure was used to calculate effect sizes(Becker, 1988).

To aid in the interpretation ofeffects, we calculated two alternativeindexes for comparison: the CommonLanguage Effect Size (CLES; McGraw &Wong, 1992) and the Binomial Effect SizeDisplay (BESD; Rosenthal & Rubin,1982). CLES is the probability that ascore sampled at random from one dis-tribution will be greater than a scoresampled from another distribution.For example, a CLES of .92 indicatesthat 92% of the time, a score sampledat random from the treatment group'sdistribution will be greater than a ran-domly sampled score from that of thecomparison group. To obtain the CLES,we first computed a z score that corre-sponded to a difference score of 0 in thedistribution of difference scores. TheCLES is then the upper tail probabilityassociated with this value on the unitnormal curve.

The BESD presents effects as therate of success (i.e., spelling improve-ment) in each condition. Binomial ef-fects were calculated by transformingeach effect size d into an effect size rand then calculating the treatment con-dition success rate as .50 plus r/2 andthe treatment condition failure rate as.50 minus r/2 (Rosenthal, 1994). Bino-mial effect sizes are summarized inTable 3. The simple difference in suc-cess rates between the treatment andcomparison conditions is readily calcu-lated from the table and conveys thepractical importance of any effect in-dexed as a correlation (Rosenthal &Rubin, 1982).

Results

Nineteen studies met the criteria for in-clusion in the synthesis. Eleven useda single-subject design, and two stud-ies examined interventions with a sin-gle group of students. A treatment-comparison design was used in sixstudies. Effect size d is reported fortreatment-comparison and single-groupstudies with the descriptive findings

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 531

TABLE 1Summary of Intervention Studies Reviewed

Study N Grade Duration Implementer Intervention type

Treatment-Comparison Designs

Darch et al. (2000), Experiment 2 30 LD NR 3 weeks (4 x per week) Researcher SpellingFulk (1996) 34 LD 7-8 3 sessions Researcher SpellingHerrera et al. (1997) 83 LD 3-5 68 sessions (daily) Teacher ReadingLewis et al. (1998) 108 LD 4-8 20 weeks(1 h per week) Teacher Spelling with ATRaskind & Higgins (1999) 39 LD K-12 16 weeks (1 x per week) Independent Spelling with ATTorgesen et al. (2001) 50 LD M =4 8-9 weeks (2 x per day) Researcher Reading

Single-Group Designs

Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein (1998) 43 LD 1-2; 4-6 3 weeks (2 x per week) Teacher SpellingMacArthur et al. (1996), Study 2 27 LD 6-7 5 months previous instruction Teacher Spelling with AT

Single-Subject Designs

Grskovic & Belfiore (1996) 2 LD 4-5 3 weeks (4 x per week) Researcher SpellingHughes et al. (2002) 1 LD 6 37 sessions Teacher SpellingKeel et al. (2001) 12 LD 2-6 9 sessions (daily) Teacher ReadingMacArthur (1998) 5 LD NR NR Researcher Spelling with ATMacArthur (1999), Study 1 2 LD 9-10-year-olds 39 sessions (daily) Researcher Spelling with ATMacArthur (1999), Study 2 2 LD 9-10-year-olds 8 sessions (3-4 x per week) Researcher Spelling with ATMasterson & Crede (1999) 1 LD 5 6 weeks (2 x per week) Researcher SpellingMcComas et al. (1996) 4 LD NR 9 sessions Researcher SpellingMcNaughton et al. (1997) 3 LD 10-12 NR (3 x per week) Researcher Spelling with ATMorton et al. (1998) 5 LD NR 32 sessions (4 x per week) Independent SpellingTelecsan et al. (1999) 6 LD 4-5 18-28 sessions (daily) Independent Spelling

Note. LD = learning disabilities; NR not reported; AT = assistive technology.

hereafter. CLES and BESD indexes arereported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively,for further comparison when study de-sign permitted.

Quality of Studies

The What Works Clearinghouse (Insti-tute of Education Sciences, 2003) iden-tified several features of interventionresearch designs that improve confi-dence in findings from research. Threeof the most significant criteria identi-fied include (a) the use of random as-signment, (b) evidence of the use of afidelity of treatment check, and (c) theuse of standardized measurements.

Random assignment is the mostcritical element of a true experimentaldesign, providing the greatest evi-dence of causal effects. Five of the 19studies that met the criteria for thissynthesis used random assignment ofstudents to treatment and comparison

groups (Darch, Kim, & Johnson, 2000;Fulk, 1996; Lewis, Graves, Ashton, &Kieley, 1998; Raskind & Higgins, 1999;Torgesen et al., 2001).

A fidelity of treatment check, oftenreferred to as treatment integrity, canimprove our confidence in the accu-racy and consistency of an inter-vention's implementation (Gresham,MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, &Bocian, 2000). Data on intervention fi-delity are necessary to determinewhether the intervention was imple-mented as intended and, therefore,whether the intended intervention isresponsible for the outcomes reported.Despite differences are research de-sign, six studies in this synthesis in-cluded evidence of fidelity of treat-ment in the study (Grskovic & Belfiore,1996, Hughes, Frederick, & Keel, 2002;Keel, Slaton, & Blackhurst, 2001; Lewiset al., 1998; Morton, Heward, & Alber,1998; Telecsan, Slaton, & Stevens, 1999).

Using reliable and valid standard-ized measures is another important cri-terion that can improve confidence instudy results. When measures devel-oped by researchers are used to mea-sure the effects of an intervention, ef-fect sizes are often higher (Swanson &Hoskyn, 1998), thereby contributing topotentially biased effects of the inter-vention. Only three studies (Masterson& Crede, 1999; Raskind & Higgins,1999; Torgesen et al., 2001) in this syn-thesis used standardized measures.Markedly, none of the studies includedin this synthesis incorporated all threeof the best evidence criteria. Only threestudies included two or more of the cri-teria (Lewis et al., 1998; Raskind & Hig-gins, 1999; Torgesen et al., 2001).

Study Findings

Effects by Type of Study Design.As previously stated, three types of

532 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILrMES

TABLE 2Summary of Intervention Study Findings with Effect Sizes

Study designrintervention Measures Findings

Darch et al. (2000), Experiment 2"* T1 (rule-based approach): sequenced rule-based spelling instruction: morpho-

graphic units, phonemic analysis, and final e rule."• T2 (traditional spelling instruction): spelling words taught through written work

and word families.

Fulk (1996)"• T1 (spelling strategy): 5-step spelling strategy: (a) say the word, (b) write and

say the word, (c) check your spelling, (d) trace and say the word, and (e) writethe word from memory and check it.

"* T2 (spelling strategy + attribution): spelling strategy (same as T1) and attribu-tion training: (a) explaining attribution of successes and failures to controllablecauses (effort), (b) providing positive attributional feedback, (c) assisting stu-dents in providing positive attributional feedback.

"* C (traditional study): application of verbal rehearsal, written rehearsal, sen-tence practice, and orthographic spelling puzzles as needed.

Herrera et al. (1997)"* T (implicit instruction): sensorimotor and perceptual motor activities."* C (explicit instruction): typical instruction (Reading Mastery Program).

Lewis et al. (1998)"* T1 (word processing): writing with word processor."• T2 (keyboarding): keyboarding instruction."• T3 (alternative keyboard): word processing using adapted keyboard."• T4 (word prediction): writing using word processor with word prediction."• T5 (word prediction with speech): Writing using word processor with word pre-

diction and speech synthesis."* C: general education program of instruction.

Raskind & Higgins (1999)"* T (speech recognition): speech recognition technology used to complete writ-

ten compositions."• C (keyboarding): use of keyboard and mouse to type, write, create art, re-

search, and play games.

Torgesen et al. (2001)"• T1 (auditory discrimination in depth): phonemic awareness and individual word

reading skills with articulatory cues."• T2 (embedded phonics): explicit instruction in phonemic decoding; phonemic

awareness taught through writing and spelling activities.

30-item spelling test

daily tests

generalization test

writing vocabulary

spelling errors in writing

WRAT-3 (standardized)

orthographic choice task

KTEA Spelling subtest(standardized)

T1 vs. T2:ES = 1.76, p < .01CLES = .89

T1 vs. C:ES-= 1.25, p < .05CLES = .81T2 vs. C:ES = 0.76, p < .05CLES = .71

T1 vs. C:ES= 0.45, p < .05CLES =.62T2 vs. C:ES = 0.38, p < .05CLES =.61

T vs. C:ES.= 0.59, p < .0001CLES = .66

T vs. C:ES = 0.28aCLES =.58

T vs. C:ES= 0.16CLES = .54

T vs. C:ES= 0.11CLES = .53

T2 > Ti:Posttest:ES = 0.40CLES = .611-year FUES = -0.43CLES = .382-year FU:ES = -0.14CLES = .46

(Table continues)


(Table 2 continued)

Study design/intervention Measures Findings

Torgesen et al. (continued)developmental spelling Posttest:

ES = 0.51CLES =.641-year FU:ES = -0.38CLES =.392-year FU:ES = -0.08CLES.= .48

Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein (1998)"* T1 (reinforcement): rewards for spelling homework completion."* T2 (real-life homework): spelling homework assignments intended to help stu-

dents make link between schoolwork and everyday activities."* T3 (reinforcement plus real-life homework): T1 plus T2.

MacArthur et al. (1996), Study 2T (spell checker): review of spell checker (SC) use; use of word processor forwriting. Students corrected original documents with and without the use of the

spell checker.

weekly spelling tests

% errors found in writingsample

Students without home-work problems:

TI:ES = 0.54T1 + T2:ES = -0.27T1 + T2 + T3:ES = -0.81

Students with homeworkproblems:

TI:ES = 0.00T1 + T2:ES = 0.28T1 +T2+T3:ES = 0.00

SC no SC

63 27.9

% errors corrected

Grskovic & Belfiore (1996)"* Ti (error correction condition): students write verbally presented words fol-

lowed by immediate error correction and additional practice."* T2 (traditional condition): students independently practice writing words

presented on a sheet; feedback provided on completion.

Hughes et al. (2002)T (constant time delay procedure): 20 training trials presenting 5 words atleast 4 times; initial sessions used no time delay; subsequent sessions used

5-second delay.

T1 T2

number of words spelledcorrectly (10 items)

% of correct lettersequences

% words spelledcorrectly (5 items)

Baseline 0-2

Posttest 4-8

0

0-4

Baseline 41-77 34-62

Posttest 67-100 45-78

Baseline: 0Posttest: 80-1001-week FU: 60-1002-week FU: 80-100

(Table continues)

36.5 9.3

534 JOUR,NALOF LEARNING DISABILMES

(Table 2 continued)


Keel et al. (2001)"* T1 (everybody writes): all students copy teacher-presented word; only target

student reads the word."* T2 (only target student writes): only target student copies and reads teacher-

presented word.

spelling accuracy(correct rate of lettersequences)

% words spelledcorrectly (4 items)

MacArthur (1998)• T (speech synthesis and word prediction): use of word processor equipped

with speech synthesis and word prediction software to write journal.

MacArthur (1999), Study 1"* T1 (handwriting): write journal entries in composition books."* T2 (word processor): use of word processor to write journals."* T3 (word prediction and speech synthesis): use of word processor with speech

synthesis and word prediction to write journals.

MacArthur (1999), Study 2"* T1 (handwriting): write dictated passages on paper."* T2 (word processor): write dictated passages with word processor."• T3 (word prediction and speech synthesis): use of word processor with speech

synthesis and word prediction to write dictated passage.

Masterson & Crede (1999)0 T (individualized intervention): instruction addressed phonological awareness:

segmenting and blending words; orthographic rules induction; and visualstorage induction activities.

McComas et al. (1996)"• T1 (rhyming words): words that share a commonality provided verbally."* T2 (rhyming words/sample spelling): written model of a word that rhymes with

a group of words provided and spelled by the participant."* T3 (rhyming words/sample spelling/self-generated): procedures for T2 are

followed, and the student produces a word that rhymes with the verballypresented word. The word becomes the written model for the subsequent listof words spelled independently.

% legible words

% words spelledcorrectly

% legible words


% legible words


TWS (standardized)

Orthographic Perfor-mance Inventoryb

PIAT-R Spelling subtest(standardized

writing samples (% totalwords correct)

% correctly spelledwords (10 items)

TI:Baseline: 12.97-21.98Posttest: 29.27-47.82T2:Baseline: 12.94-21.38Posttest: 21.33-43.40

TI:Baseline: 26-37Posttest: 54-62T2:Baseline: 23-38Posttest: 40-58

Baseline: 50-94Treatment: 88-100Baseline: 42-82Treatment: 87-100

TI T2 T3

81-88 83-88 82-91

69-75 67-73 73-87

Ti T2 T3

67-75 58-70 71-86

60-64 55-63 68-83

Pretest Posttest

71 84

6

74

66-95

42

91

95

Wendy:Baseline: 10-20T1: 0-50T2: 30T3: 10JacobcBaseline: 0T2: 50-100

(Table continues)


(Table 2 continued)


McNaughton et a]. (1997)T1 (strategy instruction): use of 5-step proofreading strategy InSPECT (Start Baseline Maintenancethe spelling checker, Pick correct alternatives, Eliminate unrecognizable words,Correct additional errors, and Type in your corrections). % strategy use 26-39 80-89

% errors corrected in 22-65 70-85composition

% spelling errors in final 4.8-15.1 2.2-4.2composition

Morton et al. (1998)"* T1 (self-correct after each word): practice spelling words with an audiotape T1 T2

and follow a sequence for writing and self-correcting each word."* T2 (self-correct after all 10 words): practice spelling words with an audiotape number of words spelled Posttest 4.8-7.0 4.5-6.3

and self-correct after all 10 words are written. correctly (10 items) FU 2.0-4.5 2.5-3.8

Telecsan et al. (1999)* T (peer tutoring procedure): student pairs dictated each word set to each other spelling accuracy average time to achieve

4 times and provided prompts using constant time delay. 100% accuracy =2 hours 56 minutes(18-28 sessions)

spelling accuracy of gains in spelling partners'partner's words words ranged from 20%

to 74% (M = 38%)

Note. T = treatment group; T1, T2, etc. = first, second, etc. treatment groups; C = comparison group; FU = follow-up; CLES = Common Language Effect Size (Mc-

Graw & Wong, 1992); WRAT-3 = Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed. (Wilkinson, 1993); KTEA = Kaufmann Test of Educational Achievement (Kaufman & Kauf-man, 1985); TWS = Test of Written Spelling (Larsen & Hammill, 1994); PIAT-R = Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised (Markwardt, 1989).a Treatment group demonstrated fewer spelling errors in writing than comparison group. b Full description of measure and scores not reported. c Student did not re-

ceive Tl or T3.

research designs were represented inthe corpus of studies: (a) treatment-comparison, (b) single group, and(c) single subject. Using the best evi-dence criteria aforementioned, thetreatment-comparison designs withrandom assignment would be ex-pected to provide the most robust re-sults that are generalizable to othersamples of students. The informationprovided by all three types of studiescan inform future research.

Treatment-comparison. The authorsof five studies conducted research ex-amining spelling outcomes using atreatment-comparison design (Darchet al., 2000; Fulk, 1996; Herrera, Logan,Cooker, Morris, & Lyman, 1997; Ras-kind & Higgins, 1999; Torgesen et al.,2001). Four of these studies includedrandom assignment of students totreatment or comparison groups (Darch

et al.; Fulk; Raskind & Higgins; Torge-sen et al.), and one study used randomassignment of intact classrooms (Her-rera et al.). All of these studies pro-vided sufficient information for calcu-lating effect sizes. Effect sizes forspelling outcomes in studies using ran-dom assignment of students rangedfrom small to large (ES range = 0.11-1.76). The largest effects were found fortwo studies implementing spelling in-terventions (ES = 1.76; Darch et al.;mean ES = 1.01; Fulk) and measuringstudents' spelling of the taught words.A moderate effect was reported for astudy implementing reading interven-tions and measuring students' spellingof words that were not part of instruc-tion (mean ES = 0.46; Torgesen et al.).Amoderate effect was also reported fora reading intervention with intactclasses randomly assigned to either a

treatment (implicit instruction withsensorimotor and perceptual motor ac-tivities) or a comparison group of typ-ical school instruction (ES = 0.59; Her-rera et al.). The small effects resultedfrom a study implementing an inter-vention aimed at improving spelling inwritten compositions with assistivetechnology (mean ES = 0.14; Raskind &Higgins); however, the interventionwas put to a rigorous test through as-sessment with a standardized measure.

An additional group design studyimplementing an intervention aimedat improving spelling in written com-positions with assistive technologyalso reported small effects for improv-ing spelling errors in writing (ES =0.28; Lewis et al., 1998). In this study,students with LD in interventions werecompared to general education stu-dents receiving their typical classroom

536 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

TABLE 3Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) Scores for Treatment

and Comparison Groups

Spelling No sStudy/group comparison improvement impro

Darch et al. (2000)TI: Rule basedT2: Traditional instruction

Fulk (1996)Daily Tests

Ti: Spelling strategyC: Traditional instructionT2: Spelling + attributionC: Traditional instruction

Generalization testTi: Spelling strategyC: Traditional instructionT2: Spelling + attributionC: Traditional instruction

Herrera et al. (1997)Ti: Rule basedC: Traditional instruction

Lewis et al. (1998)TI: Technical supportsC: Traditional instruction

Raskind & Higgins (1999)WRAT-3

TI: Speech recognitionC: Keyboarding

Orthographic ChoiceTI: Speech RecognitionC: Keyboarding

Torgesen et al. (2001)KTEA Spelling

T1: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

KTEA 1-year FUT1: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

KTEA 2-year FUT1: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

Developmental spellingTI: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

Developmental spelling 1-year FUT1: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

Developmental spelling 2-year FUT1: Auditory discriminationT2: Embedded phonics

instruction. Although the participantswith LD were randomly assigned toone of five treatment groups, no signif-icant differences were found between

pelling any of the treatments. However, a com-vement bined mean for all treatment groups

was reported and was used to compare

17 the students with LD to a group of stu-

83 dents without LD receiving typicalclassroom instruction, yielding thesmall effect for students receiving anyof the treatments.

24 Single-group studies. Two studies76 provided one or more interventions to32 a single group of students. Effects were68 determined over time from pretest to

39 posttest for one study (Bryan & Sullivan-61 Burstein, 1998), and the second study41 compared two types of spelling correc-59 tion interventions for written composi-

tions (MacArthur, Graham, Haynes, &De La Paz, 1996). Several homework

36 interventions were implemented insuccession in one study with overall

minimal effects on weekly spelling test43 scores. However, the effects of each of57 these interventions could not be inter-

preted because all interventions wereconducted serially with a single groupof students, yielding order effects that

54 would influence outcomes. MacArthuret al. conducted an intervention using

47 a spell checker to improve spelling53 in written compositions with a single

group of students. At posttest, stu-dents wrote a composition and usedthe spell checker to correct spelling.

60 Students were then given a hard copyof the original composition (before the

41 spell checker had been used) and were61 asked to correct spelling by hand with-

out a spell checker. Students corrected47 more spelling errors using the spell53 checker (36.5% of total errors) than62 editing the written work by hand (9.3%62 of total errors).

Single-subject studies. The major-

41 ity of studies examining spelling out-59 comes for students with LD employed

a single-subject design. Three stud-48 ies conducted multiple baseline de-52 signs (MacArthur, 1998; McNaughton,

nent =Hughes, & Ofiesh, 1997; Telecsan et al.,,KTE = 1999); one of these studies also incor-

porated withdrawal (MacArthur). Six

Note. Totals add up to 100% pairwise for each comparison. TI, T2, etc. = first, second, etc. treatngroups; C = comparison group; FU = follow-up; WRAT-3 = Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed.Kaufmann Test of Educational Achievement.

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISAMMES31536


studies implemented an alternatingtreatments design (Grskovic & Bel-fiore, 1996; Keel et al., 2001; Mac-Arthur, 1999, Studies 1 and 2; McCo-mas et al., 1996; Morton et al., 1998),and two reported case studies (Hugheset al., 2002; Masterson & Crede, 1999).Although the results of single-subjectstudies are not intended to be general-ized to larger populations, they canprovide valuable information regard-ing intervention components that mayimprove spelling outcomes and assistin the design of future studies.

As a whole, the group of studiesemploying single-subject designs re-ported improved spelling outcomesafter intervention for the majority ofstudents. Individual student gainswere often practically significant, withspelling scores above 80% during in-tervention. This is particularly impor-tant because the findings from seven ofthe nine studies incorporating alternat-ing treatments and multiple baselinesdemonstrated improvements only whentreatments were in place.

Effects by Type of Intervention.As previously stated, the criteria for se-lecting studies to be included in thissynthesis were that they employedspelling or reading interventions andthat they measured spelling outcomesfollowing these interventions. An ex-amination of treatment effects by inter-vention type (spelling or reading) fol-lows.

Spelling interventions. Nine stud-ies examined the effects of spelling in-struction on spelling outcomes (Bryan& Sullivan-Burstein, 1998; Darch et al.,2000; Fulk, 1996; Grskovic & Belfiore,1996; Hughes et al., 2002; Masterson &Crede, 1999; McComas et al., 1996;Morton et al., 1998; Telecsan et al.,1999). Overall, student scores on spell-ing outcomes of words taught in theinterventions increased following theinterventions. Common elements ofthe interventions employed in thesestudies included explicit instructionand/or multiple practice opportuni-ties in spelling words with immediatefeedback.

Only two studies included a com-parison group of students. In boththese studies, the researchers describedthe comparison group as using tradi-tional methods of spelling instruction(Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996). Darch etal. implemented a morphographic rulespelling intervention compared to atraditional basal spelling program (ES =1.76). This study did not report pretestscores for the treatment and compari-son groups or analyses of group simi-larity at pretest. However, studentswere randomly assigned to groups, in-creasing the chances of group similar-ity prior to the intervention. The Fulkstudy reported large effects after teach-ing students to follow a systematicspelling study strategy with the fol-lowing sequence: say the word, writeand say the word, check spelling, traceand say the word, and write the wordfrom memory (mean ES =1.01; Fulk).The comparison group was describedas following a traditional pattern ofverbal and written rehearsal, sentencepractice, and spelling puzzles. Effectswere smaller, though still in the mod-erate range for assessments designedto determine generalization effects onuntrained words (mean ES = 0.42).

One single-group study exam-ined the effects of various spellinghomework interventions (Bryan &Sullivan-Burstein, 1998). The home-work interventions were (a) weeklyreinforcement for completing home-work; (b) real-life homework assign-ments (e.g., finding spelling words in anewspaper); and (c) a combination ofreinforcement and real-life homework.The same group of students receivedeach of these interventions in succes-sion. Baseline data were not collectedbetween the successive interventions,making it difficult to determine whetherthe effects of the second (real-lifehomework) and third (real-life home-work and reinforcement) interventionswere the result of current interventionsor previous interventions. Therefore,the results of these interventions can-not be interpreted separately.

For students with LD who had noprevious homework problems, the

weekly reinforcement interventionyielded the highest effects on spellingoutcomes (mean ES = 0.64; Bryan &Sullivan-Burstein, 1998). Students withLD demonstrating homework prob-lems prior to the intervention madesubstantially fewer gains in homeworkcompletion (ES = 0.27) and no gains inscores on weekly spelling tests (ES =0.00). Real-life assignments and thecombination intervention, implementedin immediate succession following thereinforcement intervention, yieldedmoderate effects for homework com-pletion for students without home-work problems (ES = 0.53 for real-life;ES = 0.53 for combination). However,these students' scores on weekly spell-ing tests decreased over time. Weeklytest scores for students with home-work problems remained relativelystable across baseline and interventions.

Six studies examining spellinginstruction interventions employedsingle-subject designs. Three of thestudies compared the effects of severalspelling interventions with the samestudents (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996;McComas et al., 1996; Morton et al.,1998). Generally, these studies revealedinstruction in systematic spelling studystrategies that included spelling wordsorally or writing words with immedi-ate correction of words resulted inhigher outcomes for students than in-struction that included only writingwords with no error correction or er-ror correction only after practicing allwords.

Three of the six single-subjectstudies examined the effects of oneintervention. Like the previous threesingle-subject studies, the interventionemployed also addressed repeatedpractice of spelling words, orally or inwriting, as well as immediate feed-back. Each of these studies reportedimproved spelling scores after inter-vention when compared to baselinescores. One case study using timedelay methods reported that treatmentgains on spelling outcomes on trainedwords were maintained after 2 weeks(Hughes et al., 2002). A second casestudy (Masterson & Crede, 1999) re-

oil


vealed an improvement of 13 to 17standard score points on two stan-dardized tests following a phonics-based intervention developed from anerror analysis of student pretests. Inaddition to reported gains in trainedspelling words, a third study examinedobservational learning of spellingwords (Telecsan et al., 1999) through areciprocal peer tutoring intervention.Each student alternated between serv-ing in the role of tutor and tutee. A setof words was chosen for each studentto learn. As the tutor, the studenttaught a set of words to another stu-dent using time delay methods. As thetutee, the student learned a differentset of words from his or her partner.Students showed increases in accuratespelling of both sets of words. Posttestassessments of words that studentstaught to their partners yielded a meangain of 38% (range = 20%-74%). Thespecific number of words that partnerslearned was not reported.

Spelling with assistive technology.In addition to the nine spelling in-struction intervention studies just de-scribed, seven studies examined spellingoutcomes for students after receivinginstruction in assistive technology forimproving spelling in written compo-sitions (Lewis et al., 1998; MacArthur,1998; MacArthur, 1999, Studies 1 and 2;MacArthur et al., 1996; McNaughton etal., 1997; Raskind & Higgins, 1999).Overall, interventions including spell-ing with assistive technology usingvarious word processing programsthat included components such asspeech synthesis, word prediction, andspell checking yielded positive effectson measures of students' spelling ac-curacy and correction.

Two of the studies employed atreatment-comparison design to ex-amine the effects of word processinginterventions (Lewis et al., 1998; Ras-kind & Higgins, 1999). Lewis et al.found no differences in spelling out-comes between five different treat-ments using various word processinginterventions. However, all of the stu-dents with LD participating in thetreatment interventions significantly

outperformed (i.e., produced fewerspelling errors in compositions atposttest than at pretest) students with-out LD participating in typical class-room writing instruction (ES = -0.28).Small effects were also found in theRaskind and Higgins study, where stu-dents in the treatment group usedword processors with a speech recog-nition component. Students with LD inthe comparison group were given in-struction in typing and using a com-puter. The treatment group receivedmodestly higher scores on measures oforthographic choice (ES = 0.11) andstandardized written spelling (ES =

0.16) after intervention. At a practicallevel, however, students in the treat-ment and comparison groups werenearly at ceiling on the orthographicassessment at pretest, and the gains forthe treatment group on this measurefrom pretest to posttest were I point.

One single-group study exam-ined the effects of word processingwith a spell checker and reported thatstudents were able to correct morespelling errors when using a word pro-cessor to write compositions as com-pared to handwritten compositions(MacArthur et al., 1996). Furthermore,two single-subject studies examinedspelling interventions with word pro-cessing technology. The addition ofspeech synthesis and word predictioncapabilities was more effective thanword processing alone in increasingthe number of legible words (legibilitybased on spelling) and the number ofcorrectly spelled words for individualstudents in one study (MacArthur,1998). Multiple baselines for four offive students indicated that improvedspelling occurred only when the speechand prediction capabilities were inplace. MacArthur (1999) found similarresults for the effects of speech synthe-sis and word prediction technology forstudents writing dictated passages(Study 2) but found few differences be-tween handwriting and technologyuse when students wrote journal en-tries (Study 1). However, the studentsdemonstrating no differences in out-comes generally had lower rates of

word prediction use (MacArthur, 1999).The second single-subject study in-cluded explicit instruction in a strategyfor using the spell checker componentof a word processor. Following inter-vention, students were able to correcttwice as many spelling errors in theirown writing and in the writing ofothers (final error rate = 2%-4%o; Mc-Naughton et al., 1997).

Reading interventions. Only threestudies examined spelling outcomesfollowing interventions in reading(Herrera et al., 1997; Keel et al., 2001;Torgesen et al., 2001). Moderate effectsin favor of less explicit instruction werereported in one study (ES = 0.59; Her-rera et al., 1997). The comparison in-struction, defined as explicit, was theprogram already in place at the schooland, thus, was the school's typical in-struction. The instruction provided tothe comparison group was not ob-served by the researchers during thestudy. A moderate effect on standard-ized spelling measures was also foundfor an explicit phonics interventionembedded with text reading frombasal readers and trade books whencompared to an intensive phonemicawareness and phonics intervention(mean ES = 0.46; Torgesen et al.). How-ever, follow-up testing indicated littledifference between intervention groupsby the second year following interven-tion (ES = 0.11).

Keel et al. (2001) provided inter-vention in word reading using a single-subject design. Students also wrote thewords they were learning to read.When students were required to writetheir own set of words as well as thosebeing taught to other students in thegroup, the number of correct letter se-quences on spelling probes of the ob-servational words (i.e., words taughtto other students in the group) wasslightly higher than when studentswrote only their targeted words. Spell-ing outcomes for each student's targetwords were not reported.

Given the small number of stud-ies examining the spelling outcomes ofreading interventions for studentswith LID and the significant differences

538 JO URNTAL OF LEARNNIG DISABILMTES

in the design of the studies, it is diffi-cult to generalize the findings. Addi-tional information regarding the ef-fects of the reading interventions onspelling is needed.

Effects by Duration of Interven-tion. The studies in this synthesis var-ied in the length of intervention (range =2 days to 9 months). Seven studies ex-amined interventions with a durationof 3 weeks or less (Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein, 1998; Darch et al., 2000; Fulk,1996; Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996; Keelet al., 2001; MacArthur, 1999, Study 2;McComas et al., 1996). Two of thesestudies implemented interventions foronly two to three sessions (Fulk; Mc-Comas et al.). Five studies imple-mented interventions for 5 to 9 weeks(MacArthur, 1999, Study 1; Masterson& Crede, 1999; Morton et al., 1998;Telecsan et al., 1999; Torgesen et al.,2001). Torgesen et al. implemented in-terventions with considerably moretime than the other studies, in that twosessions were provided each day for 50min each. Four studies implementedinterventions over 4- to 6-month peri-ods (Herrera et al., 1997; Lewis et al.,1998; MacArthur et al., 1996; Raskind& Higgins, 1999). However, Lewis etal. and Raskind and Higgins con-ducted intervention sessions once perweek over the duration of the study.Three studies did not provide enoughinformation to ascertain the durationof the intervention (Hughes et al., 2002;MacArthur, 1998; McNaughton et al.,1997).

With one exception (Bryan &Sullivan-Burstein, 1998), interventionsof 3 weeks or less yielded consistentlylarge effects. Interventions of 4 to 6months reported mixed results forspelling, ranging from small effects tolarge effects. However, these findingscould be a result of the type of inter-vention implemented rather than ofthe duration of the intervention. Fiveof seven studies with a duration of3 weeks or less implemented spellinginterventions, and all of the studieswith a duration of 4 to 6 months im-plemented reading interventions or in-


terventions aimed at improving spell-ing in writing with assistive tech-nology. Moreover, all of the measuresreported in the studies with a durationof 3 weeks or less were nonstandard-ized, teacher- or researcher-developedmeasures. Thus, the differences in ef-fects may be explained by several fac-tors, including the focus of the inter-ventions and the outcome measuresemployed.

Regardless of intervention dura-tion, students participating in all stud-ies demonstrated improved spellingoutcomes after the intervention periodfor 17 of the 19 studies. For spelling in-terventions, new sets of spelling wordswere typically introduced each weekthroughout the duration of the inter-vention, or they were introduced asstudents met specified criteria for pre-vious sets of words. Students weregenerally taught words in sets of 10.Improvements were demonstrated onspelling outcomes of trained words inthese studies regardless of whethertesting was conducted the same daythat the students learned the words, atthe end of the week of practicingwords, or 1 to 2 weeks after learningthe words. Two studies implementedinterventions in which a new list ofwords was presented at each session(Fulk, 1996; McComas et al., 1996). Im-provements were shown on same-daymeasures of spelling, but no follow-upmeasures were conducted to examinemaintenance.

Effects by Person Implementingthe Interventions. Researchers or teach-ers implemented the interventions inmost studies. A few studies also de-signed interventions wherein studentsworked independently or with part-ners to study and practice spellingwords. Generally, spelling outcomeswere similar whether researchers orteachers implemented the intervention.Although the outcomes for student in-dependent work were somewhat lower,only a few studies examined these in-terventions.

Researcher. The researchers im-plemented the interventions in 10

539

studies (Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996;Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996; MacArthur,1998; MacArthur, 1999, Studies I and 2;Masterson & Crede, 1999; McComas etal., 1996; McNaughton et al., 1997;Torgesen et al., 2001). Three studies in-cluded comparison groups and yieldedmean effect sizes of 1.76 (Darch et al.),1.01 (Fulk), and 0.46 (Torgesen et al.) onspelling outcome measures after inter-vention. Increases in spelling strategyuse, spelling test scores, and percent-age of correctly written words in writ-ten compositions were reported in theother studies.

Classroom teacher. Six studiesused the teacher-general or specialeducation-to implement the interven-tions (Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein, 1998;Herrera et al., 1997; Hughes et al., 2002;Keel et al., 2001; Lewis et al., 1998;MacArthur et al., 1996). Two studies in-cluding comparison groups yieldedmoderate to small effects on spell-ing outcomes following interventions(ES = 0.59; Herrera et al.; ES = -0.28, formeasured number of spelling errors;Lewis et al.). The small effects of theLewis et al. study may be a result ofcomparing students with LD to stu-dents without LD; students with LDwere compared with general educationstudents receiving typical instruction.One single-group study also reportedhigher spelling outcomes for studentscorrecting words with a spell checkerin a word processor (technology taughtpreviously by the teacher) than for stu-dents correcting spelling by handwithout the aid of the spell checker(MacArthur et al.). In contrast, a sec-ond single-group study implementingmultiple interventions yielded overallminimal effects on measures of spell-ing homework completion and spell-ing tests (Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein).

Two single-subject studies imple-mented by teachers found increases instudent ability to correctly spell taughtwords. Spelling test scores above 93%were reported at posttest in one study(Hughes et al., 2002). Somewhat lowergains for spelling outcomes were de-scribed following a reading interven-tion (Keel et al., 2001). Student scores


(correct letter sequences per minute) atposttest ranged from 19.53 to 46.77,demonstrating an increase over therange of 12.94 to 21.98 at baseline.

Independent shtdent practice. Threestudies implemented interventions re-quiring students to work indepen-dently with speech recognition tech-nology, with the assistance of a taperecorder providing directions for prac-tice steps, or with a peer (Morton etal., 1998; Raskind & Higgins, 1999;Telecsan et al., 1999). Only one studyincluded a comparison group and re-ported small effect sizes on standard-ized measures of spelling (mean ES =0.14; Raskind & Higgins). Althoughfour of five students in the study byMorton et al. performed better whenusing a self-correction procedure afterevery practice word, their mean scoreson weekly spelling tests remained inthe moderate range (4.8-7.0 words cor-rect out of 10 words) and were notmaintained 1 week later (2.0-4.5 wordscorrect). In contrast, students workingwith peers to study words (Telecsan etal.) demonstrated increases on spellingprobes to near 100% and also showedgains in learning their peers' words(mean gain = 38%).

Discussion

This study was conducted to providean updated synthesis on spelling andreading interventions that are associ-ated with effective spelling outcomesfor students with LD. When appro-priate data were available, effect sizeswere calculated and reported. The re-ported effect sizes serve as a standard-ized indicator of the difference in out-comes that makes it possible to compareresults across intervention types, dura-tion of intervention, provider, and set-ting. Computing an average effect sizeacross the examined interventions wasnot possible due to the disparate na-ture of study designs, interventioncontent and duration, and measures ofspelling outcome.

Considering that causal relation-ships can be inferred with a highdegree of certainty in treatment-

comparison studies, the large effectsfrom spelling intervention studies thatemployed comparison groups are prom-ising. Interventions in the treatment-comparison studies that providedstudents with spelling strategies orsystematic study and word practicemethods resulted in the highest ratesof spelling improvement-a findingthat supports results from previoussyntheses (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughtonet al., 1994). Both the size of these ef-fects and their practical importance-as demonstrated by the high probabil-ity of students in the interventionsoutperforming their peers in the com-parison condition-provide additionalevidence that such instructional prac-tices can yield improved spelling out-comes for students with LD. Otherapproaches, including sensorimotoractivities and technology supports forspelling, yielded moderate effects andprovided students with a slight advan-tage over students in comparison con-ditions.

The two treatment-comparisonstudies of reading interventions' ef-fects on spelling were moderate, sug-gesting a robust finding for spellingeven when the interventions are devel-oped to improve outcomes in relatedareas such as reading. As spelling wasnot the target skill in the reading inter-vention studies, it was expected thatthe practical effect on students' spell-ing outcomes for these interventionswould not be as pronounced. Thesmall number of studies examining thespelling outcomes of reading interven-tions provides a promising directionsuggesting related benefits for spellingfrom reading interventions for stu-dents with LD. Together, the findingsfrom the treatment-comparison stud-ies suggest that directly teaching spell-ing is beneficial, but that related inter-vention practices, such as reading, mayalso provide benefits for improvingspelling.

The other, nonexperimental stud-ies provided findings of the positiverelationship between spelling interven-tions and outcomes. However, whereas

many of the nonexperimental studiesreported improved spelling outcomes,in at least half of the studies, the resultsoften lacked practical significance. Inother words, the percentage of wordsspelled correctly may have improved,but the posttest scores often indicatedthat students were continuing to spella large percentage of words inaccu-rately.

Taking all of the studies into ac-count, this synthesis revealed that spell-ing outcomes were consistently im-proved after spelling interventionsthat included explicit instruction withmultiple practice opportunities andimmediate corrective feedback afterthe word was misspelled. Similar toprevious syntheses, the most recent re-search also suggests that time delaymethods and systematic study prac-tices result in improved spelling out-comes. Positive findings associatedwith the use of error correction proce-dures are common across present andprevious syntheses as well.

Previous syntheses have reportedstudies of computer-assisted instruc-tion and multisensory training; nosuch studies were identified in the pastdecade. However, the current synthe-sis found support for the use of mor-phographic rules and other phonics in-struction in the teaching of spelling.Furthermore, evidence from studiesemploying reading interventions andinterventions aimed at spelling withassistive technology also suggestedpositive effects on student spelling.

In general, spelling outcomeswere maintained over time for wordstaught in the intervention. Althoughfew studies examined the generaliza-tion of spelling outcomes beyondtaught words, moderate effects werefound in several studies on measuresof untaught words. This could indicatethat students with LD participating inthese interventions are learning prac-tices for attending to word spellings orobtaining an underlying system ofspelling. More research is needed to ex-amine this hypothesis directly.

The aforementioned effects weredemonstrated on spelling outcomes re-

540 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILI=E


gardless of the special education place-ment of students with LD. Participantsin the studies included in this synthe-sis received special education servicesin a variety of settings, including thegeneral education classroom, resourceroom, self-contained classrooms, andspecial education schools. For studentsreceiving services in resource rooms,self-contained classrooms, and specialeducation schools, the interventionsyielded improved spelling outcomes.Less information was available for stu-dents who were fully included in gen-eral education classrooms. Only threestudies included participants receivinginstruction in a general educationclassroom, and two of these studies ex-amined an intervention at a clinic out-side the school district.

Although previous research hasreported that researcher-implementedinterventions result in generally higheroutcomes than teacher-implementedinterventions (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee,1999), the positive effects on spellingoutcomes in this synthesis did not dif-ferentially favor implementation by re-searchers. Two studies implementedby researchers obtained large effects(Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996), but theresults across other studies were sim-ilar for researcher- and teacher-implemented interventions. Given thatthe majority of interventions in thisstudy were spelling interventions, itmay be that spelling interventions aremore easily implemented by teachers.Most of the spelling interventions de-scribed in these studies required veryfew steps in the teaching process, im-plemented direct feedback that wasoften limited to correcting the wordand practicing again, and featured in-struction that remained similar acrossdays. In many ways, the explanationfor similar spelling outcomes in re-searcher- and teacher-implemented in-terventions, as compared with find-ings from other interventions (e.g.,reading), may be that spelling inter-ventions are less complicated procedu-rally and allow greater fidelity to thetreatment protocol by teachers. Imple-mentation of effective interventions by

teachers demonstrates the feasibility ofthese interventions and increases thelikelihood for their sustained use.

Although spelling outcomes werealso positive for independent studentpractice, generally the spelling out-comes were lower than those followingresearcher- or teacher-implemented in-terventions. However, only three stud-ies in this synthesis included inde-pendent student work, and previoussyntheses have reported independent,student-directed instruction to be aseffective as adult-directed instruction(McNaughton et al., 1994).

The duration of the interventionsemployed in these studies ranged from2 days to 9 months. The highest effectsin this synthesis were demonstratedfor the shortest interventions (3 weeksor less). This finding is consistent withprevious research suggesting that thelargest amount of progress is oftenseen in interventions conducted over abriefer period of time (Elbaum, Vaughn,Hughes, & Moody, 2000). This findingcould suggest that the largest gains arefound early in an intervention and maybe related to an initial boost in learningdue to the addition of instructionaltime in an area of weakness or perhapseven due to the initial novelty of a newintervention. However, in the case ofthis synthesis, all of the studies imple-menting interventions for less than 3weeks were spelling interventions, andall of the interventions of longer dura-tion were either reading interventionsor spelling interventions with assistivetechnology. Therefore, the effects ofduration are confounded with the typeof intervention; thus, the factor relatedto the higher outcomes is unclear.

Implications for Educators

Although the search criteria incorpo-rated studies addressing students inkindergarten through 12th grade, thevast majority of studies for which par-ticipant grade-level data were avail-able targeted middle and upper ele-mentary school students (i.e., thirdthrough sixth grade). Therefore, gener-alizing the findings to students at

grade levels above or below this rangeis difficult. The lack of information oninterventions for students with LD atearlier grade levels (K-i) may be a di-rect result of the current identificationsystems for LD. Few students are iden-tified with LD in kindergarten and firstgrade, making it difficult to obtain asample of participants with LD.

Additional instructional implica-tions can be culled from the salient fea-tures of the effective interventions.Specifically, there is evidence that pro-viding immediate feedback on spell-ing accuracy-either teacher-providedfeedback or through a student self-monitoring procedure-has a positiveeffect on spelling (Grskovic & Belfiore,1996; Hughes et al., 2002; Morton et al.,1998). For studies that employed assis-tive technology as part of the spellingintervention, the use of enhancementssuch as speech synthesis or word pre-diction software were associated withspelling improvements (Lewis et al.,1998; MacArthur, 1998; MacArthur,1999; MacArthur et al., 1996). Teachinga weekly list of words to accuracy withmultiple practice opportunities wasanother common characteristic of mosteffective interventions (e.g., Fulk, 1996;Morton et al., 1998). Finally, this syn-thesis indicates an association betweenexplicit spelling instruction and im-proved spelling accuracy (Darch et al.,2000; Masterson & Crede, 1999).

Limitations and Directions forFuture Research

The research designs employed bythese intervention studies limit theconclusions that can be drawn fromthis synthesis. Additional high-quality,randomized group or other group de-signs are recommended to provideconvincing evidence for the effective-ness of specific spelling interventionsfor students with LD. Particularlyneeded are experimental designs withyounger students (Grades 1-3) andolder students (Grades 7-12).

Relatively few reading interven-tion studies were identified that exam-ined spelling outcomes for students


542

with LD. By systematically examiningthe effects of reading interventionson spelling outcomes through high-quality experimental studies, educa-tors and researchers will gain a betterunderstanding of whether improvedspelling is a value-added effect ofreading-related interventions. Becausespelling shares a reciprocal relation-ship with reading (Carver, 2003; Ehri,1997; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan,& Vermeulen, 2003), the results fromadditional research in this area willalso help educators to better addressthe needs of students with LD whohave not yet mastered the sophisti-cated knowledge of letters, sounds,and syllable patterns needed to accu-rately spell words.

Fifteen of the studies in this syn-thesis used only a researcher-developedmeasure of spelling. As discussed ear-lier, such measures are often associatedwith inflated effect sizes because (a) theresearcher-developed measures aregenerally intervention specific, whereasstandardized measures assess general-ized knowledge, and (b) the researcher-developed tests will likely have lowervariance than a standardized measure.Although researcher-developed mea-sures are valuable indicators of wordslearned through the intervention, astandardized measure provides valu-able information on relative perfor-mance in spelling.

This synthesis sought to provide acomprehensive examination of inter-vention effects on the spelling out-comes of students with LD. Althoughthe results indicate positive effectsfrom a variety of intervention types,settings, and providers, it is clear thatthere is much to learn about how tobest address spelling in reading-related interventions and how to teachstudents with LD to generalize spell-ing knowledge and skill to novel tasks.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jeanne Wanzek, PhD, is a research associate atThe University of Texas at Austin. Her researchinterests include learning disabilities, begin-ning reading, and effective instructional design.

JOURNAL OF LEARNNG DISABILMES

Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H.E. Hartfelder/Southland Corp Regents Chair in Human De-velopment at The Universihj of Texas at Austinand Professor of Special Education. She hasseroed as Editor in Chief of the Journal ofLearning Disabilities and Co-editor of Learn-ing Disabilities Research & Practice. She iscurrently working on several large-scale inter-vention studies exaamining effective practices forstudents with reading difficulties, disabilities,and English language learners at risk for read-ing problems. lade Wexler, MEd, is a doctoralcandidate in special education at The Univer-sity of Texas at Austin. Her research interestsinclude effective reading instructional practicesfor secondary struggling readers and teacherpreparation. Elizabeth Swanson is a doctoralcandidate in the Department of Special Educa-tion at The Universihy of Texas at Austin. Herresearch interests are effective reading instruc-tion for students with learning disabilities andsocial justice for people with disabilities.Meaghan Edmonds is a research associate atthe Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Lan-guage Arts at The University of Texas atAustin. Ms. Ednionds holds master's degrees inCurriculum and Instruction and ProgramEvaluation. Her research interests include ob-servation methods and comprehension instruc-tion. Ae-Hwa Kim, PhD, is an assistantprofessor in special education at Dankook Uni-versihy in Korea. Her research interests includeeffective instructional practices in reading andmathematics and computer-assisted instructionfor students with learning disabilities.

REFERENCES

Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Struc-tural equation modeling of relationsamong developmental skills and writingskills in primary and intermediate gradewriters. Journal of Educational Psychology,85,478-508.

Bear, D. R., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explo-rations in developmental spelling: Foun-dations for learning and teaching phon-ics, spelling, and vocabulary. The ReadingTeacher, 52, 222-242.

Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standard-ized mean change measures. The BritishJournal of Mathenmatical and Statistical Psy-chology, 41, 257-278.

Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., &Raskind, W. (2001). Language phenotypefor reading and writing disability: A fain-ily approach. ScientIfic Studies in Reading,5,59-105.

Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C.,Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. (1994). De-

velopmental skills related to writing andreading acquisition in the intermediategrades: Shared and unique variance.Reading and Writing: An InterdisciplinanyJournal, 6,161-196.

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D.,Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., etal. (2002). Teaching spelling and compo-sition alone and together: Implicationsfor the simple view of writing. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 94, 291-304.

Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies forteaching students with learning and behaviorproblems (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bryan, T., & Sullivan-Burstein, K. (1998).Teacher-selected strategies for improvinghomework completion. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 19, 263-275.

Bryant, N. D., Drabin, I. RI, & Gettinger, M.(1981). Effects of varying unit size onspelling achievement in learning dis-abled children. Journal of Learning Disabil-ities, 14, 200-203.

Carver, R. P. (2003). The highly lawful rela-tionships among pseudoword decoding,word identification, spelling, listening,and reading. Scientiftc Studies of Reading,7, 127-154.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis forthe behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Darch, C., Kim, S., & Johnson, J. H. (2000).The strategic spelling skills of studentswith learning disabilities: The results oftwo studies. Journal of Instructional Psy-chology, 27, 15-26.

Ehri, L. (1997). Learning to read and learn-ing to spell are one and the same, almost.In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol(Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theonr,and practice across languages (pp. 237-269).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., &Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective areone-to-one tutoring programs in readingfor elementary students at-risk for read-ing failure? A meta-analysis of the inter-vention research. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 92, 605-619.

Fulk, B. M. (1996). The effects of combinedstrategy and attribution training on LDadolescents' spelling performance. Excep-tionality, 6, 13-27.

Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995).Spelling interventions for students withdisabilities: A review. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 28,488-513.

Gettinger, M., Bryant, N. D., & Fayne, H. R.(1982). Designing spelling instruction forlearning-disabled children: An emphasis

on unit size, distributed practice, andtraining for transfer. The Journal of SpecialEducation, 16, 439-448.

Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B.(1998). Effective academic interventionsin the United States: Evaluating and en-hancing the acquisition of early readingskills. School Psychology Review, 27(1),45-56.

Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S.(1993). Spelling interventions: A reviewof literature and implications for instruc-tion for students with learning disabili-ties. Learning Disabilities Research & Prac-tice, 8, 175-181.

Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learn-ing approach replace spelling instruc-tion? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,235-247.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa,B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling in-struction to the spelling, writing, andreading, or poor spellers. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 94, 669-686.

Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C.,Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J.(2003). Morphological development inchildren's writing. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 95, 752-760.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M.(2000). Treatment integrity in learningdisabilities intervention research: Do wereally know how treatments are imple-mented? Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 15, 198-205.

Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Im-proving the spelling performance of stu-dents with disabilities. Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 6, 343-354.

Herrera, J. A., Logan, C. H., Cooker, P. G.,Morris, D. P., & Lyman, D. E. (1997).Phonological awareness and phonetic-graphic conversion: A study of the effectsof two intervention paradigms withlearning disabled children. Learning dis-ability or learning difference? Reading In-provement, 34, 71-89.

Hughes, T. A., Frederick, L. D., & Keel,M. C. (2002). Learning to effectively im-plement constant time delay proceduresto teach spelling. Learning Disability Quar-terly, 25, 210-222.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2003).What Works Clearinghouse study reviewstandards. Retrieved January 10, 2005,from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/


reviewprocess/study-standards_final.pdf

Keel, M. C., Slaton, D. B., & Blackhurst, A.E. (2001). Acquisition of content area vo-cabulary for students with learning dis-abilities. Education & Treatment of Chil-dren, 24, 4-71.

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S.(2004). Graphic organizers and their ef-fects on the reading comprehension ofstudents with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 37,105-118.

Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M.,& Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processingtools for students with learning disabili-ties: A comparison of strategies to in-crease text entry speed. Learning Disabili-ties Research & Practice, 13, 95-108.

MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processingwith speech synthesis and word predic-tion: Effects on the dialogue journal writ-ing of students with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 151-166.

MacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word predictionfor students with severe spelling problems.Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 158-172.

MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B.,& De La Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkersand students with learning disabilities:Performance comparisons and impact onspelling. The Journal of Special Education,30, 35-57.

Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999).Learning to spell: Implications for assess-ment and intervention. Language, Speech,and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 243-254.

McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J.,Asmus, J. M., Richman, D., & Stoner, B.(1996). Brief experimental analysis ofstimulus prompts for accurate respond-ing on academic tasks in an outpatientclinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,29, 397-401.

McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A com-mon language effect size statistic. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 111, 361-365.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C. A., & Clark,K. (1994). Spelling instruction for stu-dents with learning disabilities: Implica-tions for research and practice. LearningDisability Quarterly, 17, 169-185.

McNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N.(1997). Proofreading for students withlearning disabilities: Integrating com-puter and strategy use. Learning Disabili-ties Research & Practice, 12, 16-28.

543

Morton, W. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R.(1998). When to self-correct? A compari-son of two procedures on spelling perfor-mance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8,321-335.

Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R.,Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Re-lationship of morphology and other lan-guage skills in at-risk second grade read-ers and at-risk fourth grade writers.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730-742.

Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999).Speaking to read: The effects of speechrecognition technology on the readingand spelling performances of childrenwith learning disabilities. Annals of Dys-lexia, 49, 251-281.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measuresof effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis(pp. 231-244). New York: Sage.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A sim-ple, general purpose display of magni-tude of experimental effect. Journal of Ed-ucational Psychology, 74, 166-169.

Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Ex-perimental intervention research on stu-dents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review ofEducational Research, 68, 277-321.

Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C.(1999). Interventions for students with learn-ing disabilities. New York: Guilford.

Telecsan, B. L., Slaton, D. B., & Stevens,D. B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching stu-dents with learning disabilities to delivertime delay instruction. Journal of Behav-ioral Education, 9, 133-154.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner,R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., &Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial in-struction for children with severe readingdisabilities: Immediate and long-termoutcomes from two instructional ap-proaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities,34, 33-58.

Vaughn, S., Kim, A., Sloan, C. V. M.,Hughes, M. T., Elbaum, B., & Sridhar, D.(2003). Social skills interventions foryoung children with disabilities: A syn-thesis of group design studies. Remedialand Special Education, 24, 2-15.

Zipprich, M. A. (1995). Teaching web mak-ing as a guided planning tool to improvestudent narrative writing. Remedial andSpecial Education, 16, 3-15.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A Synthesis of Spelling and Reading Interventions andTheir Effects on

SOURCE: Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 no6 N/D 2006PAGE(S): 528-43

WN: 0630502284007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.proedinc.com/

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

a reading interventions and their synthesis of spelling...

Documents