Intervention for Dyslexia - The British Dyslexia Association

(accuracy or comprehension or both). The data for these comparisons can be found in
Brooks (2007, Table A6 (ratio gains), pp.270-278, and Table A7 (effect sizes), pp.279-
81).
Because the calculation of effect sizes requires data from a control or comparison group,
Table A7 contains effect sizes only for Reading Recovery in London and Surrey and ECaR
in London. Those effect sizes seem large, but (1) the effects of the first study washed
out almost completely within three years, by which stage the children involved were still
well below national norms; (2) the effect sizes for ECaR were calculated within the
samples and not from national standardisation tables (see the second paragraph in
section 5.4.2), and are therefore not properly comparable with any others in Table A7.
Also, very few phonologically based schemes appear in Table A7, limiting any possible
comparisons. The comparisons made here are therefore based on the ratio gains in
Table A6. Table A6 shows that the ratio gains for reading accuracy (there are none for
comprehension) for Reading Recovery programme groups range from 1.6 to 4.2. This
range encompasses a few new ratio gains stated earlier in this chapter. Of the 11
programmes summarised in section 3.3, nine appear in Table A.6 (the exceptions being
Phonology with Reading and the London Borough of Sutton study). Ratio gains for these
programmes range from 1.4 to 16.1 for reading accuracy (and from 1.9 to 8.3 for
comprehension). The lowest ratio gain for accuracy relates to a group of children with
moderate learning difficulties. Otherwise the ratio gains for accuracy overlap with those
for Reading Recovery at the lower end, but extend well above them at the upper end.
It seems reasonable to conclude that these comparisons on balance favour the
phonologically based schemes.
5.5 Long-term effects
Most studies of Reading Recovery have been short- or medium-term, but longer-term
follow-up is essential to check whether benefits are sustained, since many initially
effective educational programmes are known to suffer washout over time. Several
longer-term studies of Reading Recovery in several countries have shown washout
(Glynn et al., 1989; DeFord et al., 1990; Hiebert, 1994; Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik
& Slavin, 1993; Haenn, 2000; Chapman, Tunmer & Prochnow, 2001; Center et al.,
2005), but others have shown that gains were maintained (Briggs & Young, 2003;
Fraser et al., 2001; Moore and Wade, 1998; Rowe, 1995; Schmitt & Gregory, 2001;
Whitehead, 2004). Perhaps significantly, Baenen et al. (1997), the only RCT among
those analysed by the What Works Clearinghouse (2007a) to have followed up the
children involved into grades 2 and 3, found that the benefits found in grade 1 had
washed out – but this study was conducted on an older version of Reading Recovery.
The longest follow-up study conducted in the UK is that reported by Douëtil (2004), on
1,451 children in England who had completed Reading Recovery programmes during
1997-98, and who had been followed-up in 1999 at the end of Key Stage 1. 77% were
reported to have been successfully discontinued, of whom less than half (N=493)
achieved target levels in Key Stage 1 National Curriculum assessments (level 2b or
above), though 882 (80%) achieved level 2c or above. At the end of Key Stage 2, 651
children were tracked and the National Curriculum assessment results of these children
showed that, of the ones who had been successfully discontinued from Reading
Recovery programmes (N=437), 260 achieved target levels in Key Stage 2 National
Curriculum assessments (level 4 or above). This represented 59% of the 437 children
Intervention for Dyslexia 109