What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? - Digital ...

Statistical significances: between pre- and post-test, experimentals made significantly greater
progress than main controls on BASWRT and Neale accuracy (but not Neale comprehension);
alternative intervention group and their controls did not differ in progress on these tests
Follow-up: At the one-year follow-up, the Reading Recovery children were slightly less
further ahead of, but still significantly better than, the main controls on the BASWRT and
Neale accuracy, and now also significantly better on Neale comprehension. And by this point
the Phonological Intervention (AI) group were significantly better than their controls on the
BASWRT and Neale accuracy, but still not significantly better on Neale comprehension.
At the three-year follow-up, neither the Reading Recovery nor the Phonological Intervention
group was significantly better overall than their respective controls. But within both groups,
children receiving free school meals had sustained their gains, and were still ahead by about
six months of r.a. Also, Reading Recovery children who had been complete non-readers at the
pre-test in 1992 had sustained their gains, and were still ahead by about six months of r.a. -
but this was not true of such children within the Phonological Intervention group. The
researchers commented: ‘For children who were non-readers at six [Phonological
Intervention] was not enough. It would seem that these children need books as well as
phonics.’
Other evidence on the long-term effectiveness of Reading Recovery, from Australia and New
Zealand (Lowe, 1995; Moore and Wade, 1998), shows more lasting benefit and less wash-out.
Spelling results
Spelling tested only at one-year follow-up; only average raw scores and effect sizes over
relevant control groups given:
ave. raw score effect size
experimentals 18 0.32
controls 14
AI 18 0.27
controls for AI 15
113