A Synthesis of Spelling and Reading Interventions and Their of

A Synthesis of Spelling and
Reading Interventions and Their
Effects on the Spelling Outcomes
of 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 learning
disabilities (LD) are synthesized. An extensive search of the professional literature between 1995 and 2003 yielded a total of 19 intervention studies that provided spelling and reading interventions to students with LD and measured spelling outcomes. Findings revealed
that spelling outcomes were consistently improved following spelling interventions that included explicit instruction with multiple practice opportunities and immediate corrective feedback after the word was misspelled. Furthermore, evidence from spelling interventions
that employed assistive technology aimed at spelling in written compositions indicated positive effects on spelling outcomes.
pelling correctly is perhaps one of
the most valued yet difficult skills
in written communication. Spelling requires matching the sounds of
language with the appropriate letters
in order to accurately and reliably convey messages. A student's ability to
spell words correctly shows a sophisticated knowledge of letters, sounds,
and syllable patterns (Bear & Templeton, 1998).
Written English is characterized
by rules of phoneme-grapheme correspondence (Nagy, Berninger, Abbott,
Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003). The
roles of orthographic knowledge (e.g.,
processing written language; letters and
letter patterns), phonological knowledge (e.g., processing or manipulating
oral language; sounds), and morphological awareness in spelling performance have been well documented
(Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Berninger,
Abbott, Thomson, & Raskind, 2001;
Green et al., 2003). As a result, spelling
is related to reading and written expression. For example, skills associated
with successful reading, such as phonological knowledge, also play a role
in spelling (Abbott & Beminger, 1993;
Berringer, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson,
& Abbott, 1994). More specifically, formal instruction in spelling words correctly can have a positive impact on
word attack skills and written compositions (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa,
2002). Thus, learning to spell correctly
is a key component of a student's academic program.
Many students with learning disabilities (LD) struggle with mastering
the phonological structure of language
needed to map the sounds of language
to print, making reading and spelling
quite challenging (Good, Simmons, &
Smith, 1998). In fact, spelling is one of
the most common difficulties for students with LD (Bos & Vaughn, 2006).
Therefore, formal instruction in spelling may be necessary for spelling improvement for many students with LD
(Berninger et al., 2002; Graham, 2000).
Three syntheses of effective spelling interventions for students with LD
have identified instructional elements
that can improve spelling outcomes for
these students (Fulk & StormontSpurgin, 1995; Gordon, Vaughn, &
Schumm, 1993; McNaughton, Hughes,
& Clark, 1994). The reported elements
used to improve spelling can be categorized into (a) features of instructional delivery, (b) computer-assisted
instruction (CAI), (c) multisensory
training, (d) and study and word practice procedures.
Features of Instructional
Delivery
All three syntheses of spelling interventions (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,
1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughton
et al., 1994) recognized the positive
outcomes from the use of error correction procedures that incorporated error
imitation modeling, in which a teacher
reproduces a student's error before
presenting the correct response. When
error imitation analysis and feedback
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
VOL•UE 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006, PAGES 528-543
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
were used, students' spelling performance was enhanced. A second reported technique resulting in positive
outcomes was limiting the number of
words learned consecutively. Although
no optimal number has been determined, at least two studies have reported benefits to students when limiting the number of words consecutively
learned to three (Bryant, Drabin, &
Gettinger, 1981; Gettinger, Bryant, &
Fayne, 1982). The use of constant time
delay (i.e., gradually increasing the
delay time before the presentation of a
correct answer to scaffold learning)
was also noted in all of the syntheses as
associated with improved spelling outcomes for students with LD.
Computer-Assisted
Instruction
Two syntheses (Fulk & StormontSpurgin, 1995; Gordon et al., 1993)
noted positive effects related to the use
of CAI. Notably, they found that the
constant time delay instructional technique used in combination with a
computer was advantageous. Overall,
using the computer for spelling instruction was deemed a feasible option
due to the computer's capability of offering direct, personalized instruction
for students with LD. Moreover, CAI
was reported to be associated with increased student motivation to learn.
Multisensory Training
The syntheses reported mixed results
for studies examining multisensory
spelling instructional techniques, although some support was described
for strategies that included auditory
components (e.g., write and say
method; Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,
1995; McNaughton et al., 1994). Gordon et al. (1993) noted that many students with LD prefer the use of multisensory instructional techniques, such
as the use of a keyboard for practicing
spelling.
Study and Word Practice
Procedures
Positive effects for the use of systematic study and word practice procedures (e.g., copy the word, cover the
word and write, compare) reflected another common finding from the three
syntheses (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,
1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughton
et al., 1994). McNaughton et al. reported that study and word practice
procedures yielded positive outcomes
when they were teacher directed as
well as when students were taught to
use the practices for independent
study. Gordon et al. and McNaughton
et al. also reported improved outcomes
in spelling from using structured peer
tutoring.
Each of the syntheses just summarized provided valuable information regarding spelling interventions
that may improve the spelling achievement of students with LD. However,
the last such synthesis of spelling outcomes was published in 1995. Since
then, a number of intervention studies
examining spelling outcomes have
been published. The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive examination of the literature on spelling
outcomes that has been published
since the last synthesis was conducted
in 1995. This synthesis is presented to
assist practitioners and future researchers in better understanding the
effects of spelling and reading interventions on the spelling outcomes for
students with LD. Specifically, this
synthesis addresses the following research question: How effective are
spelling and reading interventions in
enhancing the spelling outcomes of
students with LD in kindergarten
through 12th grade?
Method
Data Collection
For this synthesis, we conducted a
comprehensive search of the literature
through a two-step process. We first
529
conducted a computer search of the
ERIC and PsycINFO databases to locate studies published between 1995
and 2003. Descriptors or root forms of
those descriptors (reading, spelling,
writing, read*, spell*, writ*, learning
disabilities, learning dis*, LD, mild
handicaps, reading disabilities, reading dis*, writing disabilities, writing
dis*, learning disorders, dyslexia, dyslexic, and dyslex*) were used in various combinations to capture the greatest possible number of articles. The
initial search resulted in the identification of 2,001 articles.
In addition to the computer
search, a hand search of nine major
journals was conducted from 2001
through 2003 to ensure that all studies
were identified. Journals examined in
this hand search included Exceptional
Children, Journal of EducationalPsychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, The
Journal of Special Education, Learning
Disability Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Reading Research Quarterly, Remedial and Special
Education, and Scientific Studies of Reading.
Studies were selected if they met
the following criteria:
1. The study reported that participants were students identified
as having LD. Studies also were
included if disaggregated data
were provided for students with
LD, regardless of any other
students in the study.
2. Participating students were in
Grades K-12.
3. Research designs were treatmentcomparison, single-group, or
single-subject designs.
4. Intervention consisted primarily of
any type of language arts instruction, including spelling, reading,
or writing.
5. At least one of the dependent measures assessed one or more aspects
of spelling that included spelling
words in isolation or within connected text. When an outcome
measure combined correct spelling
with another language arts ele-
530
ment, such as capitalization, and
the data related specifically to
spelling could not be disaggregated, the study was not included
(e.g., Zipprich, 1995).
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
porting was coded using a series of 8
forced-choice, yes/no questions including information regarding assumptions of independence, normality, and equal variance. To calculate
effect sizes, information related to outcome measures, direction of effects,
Data Analysis
and spelling outcome data for each inCoding Procedures. We em- tervention or comparison group was
ployed extensive coding procedures to recorded.
After extensive training (more
organize pertinent information from
each study. We relied on previously de- than 8 h) on the use and interpretation
signed code sheets that were devel- of items from the code sheet, interrater
oped for past intervention syntheses reliability was established by having
(Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; each of the four coders independently
Vaughn et al., 2003). Further revisions code a single article. Responses from
were made to ensure that the code the four coders were used to calculate
sheet addressed elements specified in the percentage agreement (i.e., agreethe What Works Clearinghouse Design ments divided by agreements plus disand Implementation Assessment Device agreements). An interrater reliability
(Institute of Education Sciences, 2003), of .94 was achieved. Reliability was
a document used to evaluate the qual- maintained by independently doublecoding all articles. On the few occaity of studies.
The code sheet was used to record sions in which differences occurred,
information on variables including meetings were held to resolve any disparticipant information, design infor- agreements in coding, with final decimation, intervention/comparison in- sions reached by consensus.
formation, clarity of causal inference,
Once the coding had been comand reported findings. Participant in- pleted, the studies were summarized
formation was coded using 3 forced- in a table format. Table 1 provides a
choice items (e.g., socioeconomic sta- summary of the features of each intertus, exceptionality) and 2 open-ended vention study. Table 2 provides a deitems (age as described in text and scription of the intervention and study
exceptionality as described in text). findings. Effect sizes or p values for
Similarly, design information was gath- treatment-comparison design studies
ered using a combination of forced- and single-group design studies are prochoice (e.g., research design, assign- vided. Descriptive findings for singlement, fidelity of implementation) and subject studies are also presented.
open-ended items (selection criteria).
Intervention/comparison information
Effect Size Calculation. Effect
was coded using 10 open-ended items sizes were calculated for treatment(e.g., site of intervention, role of person comparison studies and single-group
implementing intervention, duration studies that provided adequate staof intervention). A description of the tistical information. For treatmenttreatment and comparison conditions comparison design studies, the effect
size d was calculated as the difference
was also recorded.
Information on the clarity of between the mean posttest score of
causal inference was gathered using 9 the intervention group minus the
items for true experimental designs mean posttest score of the comparison
(e.g., sample sizes, attrition, plausibil- group divided by the pooled standard
ity of intervention contaminants) and deviation. For the studies in this syn12 items for quasi-experimental de- thesis that employed a treatmentsigns (e.g., equating procedures). Fi- comparison design, effect sizes can be
nally, the precision of outcome for both interpreted as follows: d = 0.2 small,
effect size estimation and statistical re- d = 0.5 medium, and d = 0.8 large
(Cohen, 1988). For single-group studies, a standardized mean-change measure was used to calculate effect sizes
(Becker, 1988).
To aid in the interpretation of
effects, we calculated two alternative
indexes for comparison: the Common
Language Effect Size (CLES; McGraw &
Wong, 1992) and the Binomial Effect Size
Display (BESD; Rosenthal & Rubin,
1982). CLES is the probability that a
score sampled at random from one distribution will be greater than a score
sampled from another distribution.
For example, a CLES of .92 indicates
that 92% of the time, a score sampled
at random from the treatment group's
distribution will be greater than a randomly sampled score from that of the
comparison group. To obtain the CLES,
we first computed a z score that corresponded to a difference score of 0 in the
distribution of difference scores. The
CLES is then the upper tail probability
associated with this value on the unit
normal curve.
The BESD presents effects as the
rate of success (i.e., spelling improvement) in each condition. Binomial effects were calculated by transforming
each effect size d into an effect size r
and then calculating the treatment condition success rate as .50 plus r/2 and
the treatment condition failure rate as
.50 minus r/2 (Rosenthal, 1994). Binomial effect sizes are summarized in
Table 3. The simple difference in success rates between the treatment and
comparison conditions is readily calculated from the table and conveys the
practical importance of any effect indexed as a correlation (Rosenthal &
Rubin, 1982).
Results
Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the synthesis. Eleven used
a single-subject design, and two studies examined interventions with a single group of students. A treatmentcomparison design was used in six
studies. Effect size d is reported for
treatment-comparison and single-group
studies with the descriptive findings
531
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
TABLE 1
Summary of Intervention Studies Reviewed
Study
N
Grade
Implementer
Duration
Intervention type
Treatment-Comparison Designs
3 weeks (4 x per week)
3 sessions
68 sessions (daily)
20 weeks(1 h per week)
16 weeks (1 x per week)
8-9 weeks (2 x per day)
Darch et al. (2000), Experiment 2
Fulk (1996)
Herrera et al. (1997)
Lewis et al. (1998)
Raskind & Higgins (1999)
Torgesen et al. (2001)
30 LD
34 LD
83 LD
108 LD
39 LD
50 LD
NR
7-8
3-5
4-8
K-12
M=4
Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein (1998)
MacArthur et al. (1996), Study 2
43 LD
27 LD
1-2; 4-6
6-7
Researcher
Researcher
Teacher
Teacher
Independent
Researcher
Spelling
Spelling
Reading
Spelling with AT
Spelling with AT
Reading
Teacher
Teacher
Spelling
Spelling with AT
Researcher
Teacher
Teacher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Researcher
Independent
Independent
Spelling
Spelling
Reading
Spelling with AT
Spelling with AT
Spelling with AT
Spelling
Spelling
Spelling with AT
Spelling
Spelling
Single-Group Designs
3 weeks (2 x per week)
5 months previous instruction
Single-Subject Designs
Grskovic & Belfiore (1996)
Hughes et al. (2002)
Keel et al. (2001)
MacArthur (1998)
MacArthur (1999), Study 1
MacArthur (1999), Study 2
Masterson & Crede (1999)
McComas et al. (1996)
McNaughton et al. (1997)
Morton et al. (1998)
Telecsan et al. (1999)
Note. LD = learning disabilities; NR
2 LD
1 LD
12 LD
5 LD
2 LD
2 LD
1 LD
4 LD
3 LD
5 LD
6 LD
4-5
6
2-6
NR
9-10-year-olds
9-10-year-olds
5
NR
10-12
NR
4-5
3 weeks (4 x per week)
37 sessions
9 sessions (daily)
NR
39 sessions (daily)
8 sessions (3-4 x per week)
6 weeks (2 x per week)
9 sessions
NR (3 x per week)
32 sessions (4 x per week)
18-28 sessions (daily)
not reported; AT = assistive technology.
hereafter. CLES and BESD indexes are
reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively,
for further comparison when study design permitted.
Quality of Studies
The What Works Clearinghouse (Institute of Education Sciences, 2003) identified several features of intervention
research designs that improve confidence in findings from research. Three
of the most significant criteria identified include (a) the use of random assignment, (b) evidence of the use of a
fidelity of treatment check, and (c) the
use of standardized measurements.
Random assignment is the most
critical element of a true experimental
design, providing the greatest evidence of causal effects. Five of the 19
studies that met the criteria for this
synthesis used random assignment of
students 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, often
referred to as treatment integrity, can
improve our confidence in the accuracy and consistency of an intervention's implementation (Gresham,
MacMillan, Beebe-Frankenberger, &
Bocian, 2000). Data on intervention fidelity are necessary to determine
whether the intervention was implemented as intended and, therefore,
whether the intended intervention is
responsible for the outcomes reported.
Despite differences are research design, six studies in this synthesis included evidence of fidelity of treatment in the study (Grskovic &Belfiore,
1996, Hughes, Frederick, & Keel, 2002;
Keel, Slaton, & Blackhurst, 2001; Lewis
et al., 1998; Morton, Heward, & Alber,
1998; Telecsan, Slaton, & Stevens, 1999).
Using reliable and valid standardized measures is another important criterion that can improve confidence in
study results. When measures developed by researchers are used to measure the effects of an intervention, effect sizes are often higher (Swanson &
Hoskyn, 1998), thereby contributing to
potentially biased effects of the intervention. Only three studies (Masterson
& Crede, 1999; Raskind & Higgins,
1999; Torgesen et al., 2001) in this synthesis used standardized measures.
Markedly, none of the studies included
in this synthesis incorporated all three
of the best evidence criteria. Only three
studies included two or more of the criteria (Lewis et al., 1998; Raskind & Higgins, 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 2
Summary of Intervention Study Findings with Effect Sizes
Study designrintervention
Darch et al. (2000), Experiment 2
"* T1 (rule-based approach): sequenced rule-based spelling instruction: morphographic 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) write
the word from memory and check it.
"* T2 (spelling strategy + attribution): spelling strategy (same as T1) and attribution training: (a) explaining attribution of successes and failures to controllable
causes (effort), (b) providing positive attributional feedback, (c) assisting students in providing positive attributional feedback.
"* C (traditional study): application of verbal rehearsal, written rehearsal, sentence 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 MasteryProgram).
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 prediction and speech synthesis.
"* C: general education program of instruction.
Raskind & Higgins (1999)
"* T (speech recognition): speech recognition technology used to complete written compositions.
"• C (keyboarding): use of keyboard and mouse to type, write, create art, research, 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.
Findings
Measures
30-item spelling test
T1 vs. T2:
ES = 1.76, p < .01
CLES = .89
daily tests
T1 vs. C:
ES-= 1.25, p < .05
CLES = .81
T2 vs. C:
ES = 0.76, p < .05
CLES = .71
generalization test
T1 vs. C:
ES= 0.45, p < .05
CLES =.62
T2 vs. C:
ES = 0.38, p < .05
CLES =.61
writing vocabulary
T vs. C:
ES.= 0.59, p < .0001
CLES = .66
spelling errors in writing
T vs. C:
ES = 0.28a
CLES =.58
WRAT-3 (standardized)
T vs. C:
ES= 0.16
CLES = .54
orthographic choice task
T vs. C:
ES= 0.11
CLES = .53
KTEA Spelling subtest
(standardized)
T2 > Ti:
Posttest:
ES = 0.40
CLES = .61
1-year FU
ES = -0.43
CLES = .38
2-year FU:
ES = -0.14
CLES = .46
(Table continues)
533
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
(Table 2 continued)
Study design/intervention
Findings
Measures
Torgesen et al. (continued)
Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein (1998)
T1 (reinforcement): rewards for spelling homework completion.
T2 (real-life homework): spelling homework assignments intended to help students make link between schoolwork and everyday activities.
"* T3 (reinforcement plus real-life homework): T1 plus T2.
"*
"*
developmental spelling
Posttest:
ES = 0.51
CLES =.64
1-year FU:
ES = -0.38
CLES =.39
2-year FU:
ES = -0.08
CLES.= .48
weekly spelling tests
Students without homework problems:
TI:
ES = 0.54
T1 + T2:
ES = -0.27
T1 + T2 + T3:
ES = -0.81
Students with homework
problems:
TI:
ES = 0.00
T1 + T2:
ES = 0.28
T1 +T2+T3:
ES = 0.00
MacArthur et al. (1996), Study 2
T (spell checker): review of spell checker (SC) use; use of word processor for
writing. Students corrected original documents with and without the use of the
spell checker.
Grskovic & Belfiore (1996)
"* Ti (error correction condition): students write verbally presented words followed by immediate error correction and additional practice.
"* T2 (traditional condition): students independently practice writing words
presented on a sheet; feedback provided on completion.
SC
no SC
% errors found in writing
sample
63
27.9
% errors corrected
36.5
9.3
number of words spelled
correctly (10 items)
% of correct letter
sequences
Hughes et al. (2002)
T (constant time delay procedure): 20 training trials presenting 5 words at
least 4 times; initial sessions used no time delay; subsequent sessions used
5-second delay.
% words spelled
correctly (5 items)
T1
T2
Baseline
0-2
0
Posttest
4-8
0-4
Baseline
41-77
34-62
Posttest
67-100
45-78
Baseline: 0
Posttest: 80-100
1-week FU: 60-100
2-week FU: 80-100
(Table continues)
534
JOUR,NALOF LEARNING DISABILMES
(Table 2 continued)
Study design/intervention
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 teacherpresented word.
"*
MacArthur (1998)
• T (speech synthesis and word prediction): use of word processor equipped
with speech synthesis and word prediction software to write journal.
Measures
spelling accuracy
(correct rate of letter
sequences)
TI:
Baseline: 12.97-21.98
Posttest: 29.27-47.82
T2:
Baseline: 12.94-21.38
Posttest: 21.33-43.40
% words spelled
correctly (4 items)
TI:
Baseline: 26-37
Posttest: 54-62
T2:
Baseline: 23-38
Posttest: 40-58
% legible words
Baseline: 50-94
Treatment: 88-100
Baseline: 42-82
Treatment: 87-100
% words spelled
correctly
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.
"*
"*
"*
Findings
TI
T2
T3
% legible words
81-88
83-88
82-91
% words spelled
correctly
69-75
67-73
73-87
Ti
T2
T3
% legible words
67-75
58-70
71-86
% words spelled
correctly
60-64
55-63
68-83
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 visual
storage induction activities.
Pretest
Posttest
71
84
6
42
PIAT-R Spelling subtest
(standardized
74
91
writing samples (% total
words correct)
66-95
95
% correctly spelled
words (10 items)
Wendy:
Baseline: 10-20
T1: 0-50
T2: 30
T3: 10
Jacobc
Baseline: 0
T2: 50-100
TWS (standardized)
OrthographicPerformance Inventoryb
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 verbally
presented word. The word becomes the written model for the subsequent list
of words spelled independently.
(Table continues)
535
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
(Table 2 continued)
Study design/intervention
McNaughton et a]. (1997)
T1 (strategy instruction): use of 5-step proofreading strategy InSPECT (Start
the spelling checker, Pick correct alternatives, Eliminate unrecognizable words,
Correct additional errors, and Type in your corrections).
Morton et al. (1998)
"* T1 (self-correct after each word): practice spelling words with an audiotape
and follow a sequence for writing and self-correcting each word.
"* T2 (self-correct after all 10 words): practice spelling words with an audiotape
and self-correct after all 10 words are written.
Telecsan et al. (1999)
* T (peer tutoring procedure): student pairs dictated each word set to each other
4 times and provided prompts using constant time delay.
Measures
Findings
Baseline
Maintenance
% strategy use
26-39
80-89
% errors corrected in
composition
22-65
70-85
% spelling errors in final
composition
4.8-15.1 2.2-4.2
T1
T2
number of words spelled
correctly (10 items)
Posttest 4.8-7.0
FU
2.0-4.5
spelling accuracy
average time to achieve
100% accuracy =
2 hours 56 minutes
(18-28 sessions)
spelling accuracy of
partner's words
gains in spelling partners'
words ranged from 20%
to 74% (M = 38%)
4.5-6.3
2.5-3.8
Note. T = treatment group; T1, T2, etc. = first, second, etc. treatment groups; C = comparison group; FU = follow-up; CLES = Common Language Effect Size (McGraw & Wong, 1992); WRAT-3 = Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed. (Wilkinson, 1993); KTEA = Kaufmann Test of EducationalAchievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985); TWS = Test of Written Spelling (Larsen & Hammill, 1994); PIAT-R = Peabody IndividualAchievement 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 receive Tl or T3.
research designs were represented in
the corpus of studies: (a) treatmentcomparison, (b) single group, and
(c) single subject. Using the best evidence criteria aforementioned, the
treatment-comparison designs with
random assignment would be expected to provide the most robust results that are generalizable to other
samples of students. The information
provided by all three types of studies
can inform future research.
Treatment-comparison. The authors
of five studies conducted research examining spelling outcomes using a
treatment-comparison design (Darch
et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996; Herrera, Logan,
Cooker, Morris, & Lyman, 1997; Raskind & Higgins, 1999; Torgesen et al.,
2001). Four of these studies included
random assignment of students to
treatment or comparison groups (Darch
et al.; Fulk; Raskind & Higgins; Torgesen et al.), and one study used random
assignment of intact classrooms (Herrera et al.). All of these studies provided sufficient information for calculating effect sizes. Effect sizes for
spelling outcomes in studies using random assignment of students ranged
from small to large (ES range = 0.111.76). The largest effects were found for
two studies implementing spelling interventions (ES = 1.76; Darch et al.;
mean ES = 1.01; Fulk) and measuring
students' spelling of the taught words.
A moderate effect was reported for a
study implementing reading interventions and measuring students' spelling
of words that were not part of instruction (mean ES = 0.46; Torgesen et al.).
Amoderate effect was also reported for
a reading intervention with intact
classes randomly assigned to either a
treatment (implicit instruction with
sensorimotor and perceptual motor activities) or a comparison group of typical school instruction (ES = 0.59; Herrera et al.). The small effects resulted
from a study implementing an intervention aimed at improving spelling in
written compositions with assistive
technology (mean ES = 0.14; Raskind &
Higgins); however, the intervention
was put to a rigorous test through assessment with a standardized measure.
An additional group design study
implementing an intervention aimed
at improving spelling in written compositions with assistive technology
also reported small effects for improving spelling errors in writing (ES =
0.28; Lewis et al., 1998). In this study,
students with LD in interventions were
compared to general education students receiving their typical classroom
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISAMMES31
536
TABLE 3
Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) Scores for Treatment
and Comparison Groups
Study/group comparison
Darch et al. (2000)
TI: Rule based
T2: Traditional instruction
Fulk (1996)
Daily Tests
Ti: Spelling strategy
C: Traditional instruction
T2: Spelling + attribution
C: Traditional instruction
Generalization test
Ti: Spelling strategy
C: Traditional instruction
T2: Spelling + attribution
C: Traditional instruction
Spelling
improvement
No s pelling
impro vement
17
83
24
76
32
68
39
61
41
59
Herrera et al. (1997)
Ti: Rule based
C: Traditional instruction
36
Lewis et al. (1998)
TI: Technical supports
C: Traditional instruction
43
57
Raskind & Higgins (1999)
WRAT-3
TI: Speech recognition
C: Keyboarding
Orthographic Choice
TI: Speech Recognition
C: Keyboarding
Torgesen et al. (2001)
KTEA Spelling
T1: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
KTEA 1-year FU
T1: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
KTEA 2-year FU
T1: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
Developmental spelling
TI: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
Developmental spelling 1-year FU
T1: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
Developmental spelling 2-year FU
T1: Auditory discrimination
T2: Embedded phonics
54
47
53
60
41
61
47
53
62
62
instruction. Although the participants
with LD were randomly assigned to
one of five treatment groups, no significant differences were found between
any of the treatments. However, a combined mean for all treatment groups
was reported and was used to compare
the students with LD to a group of students without LD receiving typical
classroom instruction, yielding the
small effect for students receiving any
of the treatments.
Single-group studies. Two studies
provided one or more interventions to
a single group of students. Effects were
determined over time from pretest to
posttest for one study (Bryan & SullivanBurstein, 1998), and the second study
compared two types of spelling correction interventions for written compositions (MacArthur, Graham, Haynes, &
De La Paz, 1996). Several homework
interventions were implemented in
succession in one study with overall
minimal effects on weekly spelling test
scores. However, the effects of each of
these interventions could not be interpreted because all interventions were
conducted serially with a single group
of students, yielding order effects that
would influence outcomes. MacArthur
et al. conducted an intervention using
a spell checker to improve spelling
in written compositions with a single
group of students. At posttest, students wrote a composition and used
the spell checker to correct spelling.
Students were then given a hard copy
of the original composition (before the
spell checker had been used) and were
asked to correct spelling by hand without a spell checker. Students corrected
more spelling errors using the spell
checker (36.5% of total errors) than
editing the written work by hand (9.3%
of total errors).
Single-subject studies. The major-
ity of studies examining spelling outcomes for students with LD employed
a single-subject design. Three stud48
ies conducted multiple baseline de52
signs (MacArthur, 1998; McNaughton,
nent =Hughes,
& Ofiesh, 1997; Telecsan et al.,
Note. Totals add up to 100% pairwise for each comparison. TI, T2, etc. = first, second, etc. treatn
,KTE
=
1999);
one
of these studies also incorgroups; C = comparison group; FU = follow-up; WRAT-3 = Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed.
porated withdrawal (MacArthur). Six
Kaufmann Test of EducationalAchievement.
41
59
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
studies implemented an alternating
treatments design (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996; Keel et al., 2001; MacArthur, 1999, Studies 1 and 2; McComas et al., 1996; Morton et al., 1998),
and two reported case studies (Hughes
et al., 2002; Masterson & Crede, 1999).
Although the results of single-subject
studies are not intended to be generalized to larger populations, they can
provide valuable information regarding intervention components that may
improve spelling outcomes and assist
in the design of future studies.
As a whole, the group of studies
employing single-subject designs reported improved spelling outcomes
after intervention for the majority of
students. Individual student gains
were often practically significant, with
spelling scores above 80% during intervention. This is particularly important because the findings from seven of
the nine studies incorporating alternating treatments and multiple baselines
demonstrated improvements only when
treatments were in place.
Effects by Type of Intervention.
As previously stated, the criteria for selecting studies to be included in this
synthesis were that they employed
spelling or reading interventions and
that they measured spelling outcomes
following these interventions. An examination of treatment effects by intervention type (spelling or reading) follows.
Spelling interventions. Nine studies examined the effects of spelling instruction 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 spelling outcomes of words taught in the
interventions increased following the
interventions. Common elements of
the interventions employed in these
studies included explicit instruction
and/or multiple practice opportunities in spelling words with immediate
feedback.
Only two studies included a comparison group of students. In both
these studies, the researchers described
the comparison group as using traditional methods of spelling instruction
(Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996). Darch et
al. implemented a morphographic rule
spelling intervention compared to a
traditional basal spelling program (ES =
1.76). This study did not report pretest
scores for the treatment and comparison groups or analyses of group similarity at pretest. However, students
were randomly assigned to groups, increasing the chances of group similarity prior to the intervention. The Fulk
study reported large effects after teaching students to follow a systematic
spelling study strategy with the following sequence: say the word, write
and say the word, check spelling, trace
and say the word, and write the word
from memory (mean ES =1.01; Fulk).
The comparison group was described
as following a traditional pattern of
verbal and written rehearsal, sentence
practice, and spelling puzzles. Effects
were smaller, though still in the moderate range for assessments designed
to determine generalization effects on
untrained words (mean ES = 0.42).
One single-group study examined the effects of various spelling
homework interventions (Bryan &
Sullivan-Burstein, 1998). The homework interventions were (a) weekly
reinforcement for completing homework; (b) real-life homework assignments (e.g., finding spelling words in a
newspaper); and (c) a combination of
reinforcement and real-life homework.
The same group of students received
each of these interventions in succession. Baseline data were not collected
between the successive interventions,
making it difficult to determine whether
the effects of the second (real-life
homework) and third (real-life homework and reinforcement) interventions
were the result of current interventions
or previous interventions. Therefore,
the results of these interventions cannot be interpreted separately.
For students with LD who had no
previous homework problems, the
oil
weekly reinforcement intervention
yielded the highest effects on spelling
outcomes (mean ES = 0.64; Bryan &
Sullivan-Burstein, 1998). Students with
LD demonstrating homework problems prior to the intervention made
substantially fewer gains in homework
completion (ES = 0.27) and no gains in
scores on weekly spelling tests (ES =
0.00). Real-life assignments and the
combination intervention, implemented
in immediate succession following the
reinforcement intervention, yielded
moderate effects for homework completion for students without homework problems (ES = 0.53 for real-life;
ES = 0.53 for combination). However,
these students' scores on weekly spelling tests decreased over time. Weekly
test scores for students with homework problems remained relatively
stable across baseline and interventions.
Six studies examining spelling
instruction interventions employed
single-subject designs. Three of the
studies compared the effects of several
spelling interventions with the same
students (Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996;
McComas et al., 1996; Morton et al.,
1998). Generally, these studies revealed
instruction in systematic spelling study
strategies that included spelling words
orally or writing words with immediate correction of words resulted in
higher outcomes for students than instruction that included only writing
words with no error correction or error correction only after practicing all
words.
Three of the six single-subject
studies examined the effects of one
intervention. Like the previous three
single-subject studies, the intervention
employed also addressed repeated
practice of spelling words, orally or in
writing, as well as immediate feedback. Each of these studies reported
improved spelling scores after intervention when compared to baseline
scores. One case study using time
delay methods reported that treatment
gains on spelling outcomes on trained
words were maintained after 2 weeks
(Hughes et al., 2002). A second case
study (Masterson & Crede, 1999) re-
538
vealed an improvement of 13 to 17
standard score points on two standardized tests following a phonicsbased intervention developed from an
error analysis of student pretests. In
addition to reported gains in trained
spelling words, a third study examined
observational learning of spelling
words (Telecsan et al., 1999) through a
reciprocal peer tutoring intervention.
Each student alternated between serving in the role of tutor and tutee. A set
of words was chosen for each student
to learn. As the tutor, the student
taught a set of words to another student using time delay methods. As the
tutee, the student learned a different
set of words from his or her partner.
Students showed increases in accurate
spelling of both sets of words. Posttest
assessments of words that students
taught to their partners yielded a mean
gain of 38% (range = 20%-74%). The
specific number of words that partners
learned was not reported.
Spelling with assistive technology.
In addition to the nine spelling instruction intervention studies just described, seven studies examined spelling
outcomes for students after receiving
instruction in assistive technology for
improving spelling in written compositions (Lewis et al., 1998; MacArthur,
1998; MacArthur, 1999, Studies 1 and 2;
MacArthur et al., 1996; McNaughton et
al., 1997; Raskind & Higgins, 1999).
Overall, interventions including spelling with assistive technology using
various word processing programs
that included components such as
speech synthesis, word prediction, and
spell checking yielded positive effects
on measures of students' spelling accuracy and correction.
Two of the studies employed a
treatment-comparison design to examine the effects of word processing
interventions (Lewis et al., 1998; Raskind & Higgins, 1999). Lewis et al.
found no differences in spelling outcomes between five different treatments using various word processing
interventions. However, all of the students with LD participating in the
treatment interventions significantly
OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
JOURNAL
JO URNTALOF LEARNNIG DISABILMTES
outperformed (i.e., produced fewer
spelling errors in compositions at
posttest than at pretest) students without LD participating in typical classroom writing instruction (ES = -0.28).
Small effects were also found in the
Raskind and Higgins study, where students in the treatment group used
word processors with a speech recognition component. Students with LD in
the comparison group were given instruction in typing and using a computer. The treatment group received
modestly higher scores on measures of
orthographic choice (ES = 0.11) and
standardized written spelling (ES =
0.16) after intervention. At a practical
level, however, students in the treatment and comparison groups were
nearly at ceiling on the orthographic
assessment at pretest, and the gains for
the treatment group on this measure
from pretest to posttest were I point.
One single-group study examined the effects of word processing
with a spell checker and reported that
students were able to correct more
spelling errors when using a word processor to write compositions as compared to handwritten compositions
(MacArthur et al., 1996). Furthermore,
two single-subject studies examined
spelling interventions with word processing technology. The addition of
speech synthesis and word prediction
capabilities was more effective than
word processing alone in increasing
the number of legible words (legibility
based on spelling) and the number of
correctly spelled words for individual
students in one study (MacArthur,
1998). Multiple baselines for four of
five students indicated that improved
spelling occurred only when the speech
and prediction capabilities were in
place. MacArthur (1999) found similar
results for the effects of speech synthesis and word prediction technology for
students writing dictated passages
(Study 2) but found few differences between handwriting and technology
use when students wrote journal entries (Study 1). However, the students
demonstrating no differences in outcomes generally had lower rates of
word prediction use (MacArthur, 1999).
The second single-subject study included explicit instruction in a strategy
for using the spell checker component
of a word processor. Following intervention, students were able to correct
twice as many spelling errors in their
own writing and in the writing of
others (final error rate = 2%-4%o; McNaughton et al., 1997).
Reading interventions. Only three
studies examined spelling outcomes
following interventions in reading
(Herrera et al., 1997; Keel et al., 2001;
Torgesen et al., 2001). Moderate effects
in favor of less explicit instruction were
reported in one study (ES = 0.59; Herrera et al., 1997). The comparison instruction, defined as explicit, was the
program already in place at the school
and, thus, was the school's typical instruction. The instruction provided to
the comparison group was not observed by the researchers during the
study. A moderate effect on standardized spelling measures was also found
for an explicit phonics intervention
embedded with text reading from
basal readers and trade books when
compared to an intensive phonemic
awareness and phonics intervention
(mean ES = 0.46; Torgesen et al.). However, follow-up testing indicated little
difference between intervention groups
by the second year following intervention (ES = 0.11).
Keel et al. (2001) provided intervention in word reading using a singlesubject design. Students also wrote the
words they were learning to read.
When students were required to write
their own set of words as well as those
being taught to other students in the
group, the number of correct letter sequences on spelling probes of the observational words (i.e., words taught
to other students in the group) was
slightly higher than when students
wrote only their targeted words. Spelling outcomes for each student's target
words were not reported.
Given the small number of studies examining the spelling outcomes of
reading interventions for students
with LID and the significant differences
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
terventions aimed at improving spelling in writing with assistive technology. Moreover, all of the measures
reported in the studies with a duration
of 3 weeks or less were nonstandardized, teacher- or researcher-developed
Effects by Duration of Interven- measures. Thus, the differences in eftion. The studies in this synthesis var- fects may be explained by several facied in the length of intervention (range = tors, including the focus of the inter2 days to 9 months). Seven studies ex- ventions and the outcome measures
amined interventions with a duration employed.
Regardless of intervention duraof 3 weeks or less (Bryan & SullivanFulk,
tion,
students participating in all studBurstein, 1998; Darch et al., 2000;
ies
demonstrated
improved spelling
1996; Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996; Keel
et al., 2001; MacArthur, 1999, Study 2; outcomes after the intervention period
McComas et al., 1996). Two of these for 17 of the 19 studies. For spelling instudies implemented interventions for terventions, new sets of spelling words
only two to three sessions (Fulk; Mc- were typically introduced each week
Comas et al.). Five studies imple- throughout the duration of the intermented interventions for 5 to 9 weeks vention, or they were introduced as
(MacArthur, 1999, Study 1; Masterson students met specified criteria for pre& Crede, 1999; Morton et al., 1998; vious sets of words. Students were
Telecsan et al., 1999; Torgesen et al., generally taught words in sets of 10.
2001). Torgesen et al. implemented in- Improvements were demonstrated on
terventions with considerably more spelling outcomes of trained words in
time than the other studies, in that two these studies regardless of whether
sessions were provided each day for 50 testing was conducted the same day
min each. Four studies implemented that the students learned the words, at
interventions over 4- to 6-month peri- the end of the week of practicing
ods (Herrera et al., 1997; Lewis et al., words, or 1 to 2 weeks after learning
1998; MacArthur et al., 1996; Raskind the words. Two studies implemented
& Higgins, 1999). However, Lewis et interventions in which a new list of
al. and Raskind and Higgins con- words was presented at each session
ducted intervention sessions once per (Fulk, 1996; McComas et al., 1996). Imweek over the duration of the study. provements were shown on same-day
Three studies did not provide enough measures of spelling, but no follow-up
information to ascertain the duration measures were conducted to examine
of the intervention (Hughes et al., 2002; maintenance.
MacArthur, 1998; McNaughton et al.,
Effects by Person Implementing
1997).
With one exception (Bryan & the Interventions. Researchers or teachSullivan-Burstein, 1998), interventions ers implemented the interventions in
of 3 weeks or less yielded consistently most studies. A few studies also delarge effects. Interventions of 4 to 6 signed interventions wherein students
months reported mixed results for worked independently or with partspelling, ranging from small effects to ners to study and practice spelling
large effects. However, these findings words. Generally, spelling outcomes
could be a result of the type of inter- were similar whether researchers or
vention implemented rather than of teachers implemented the intervention.
the duration of the intervention. Five Although the outcomes for student inof seven studies with a duration of dependent work were somewhat lower,
3 weeks or less implemented spelling only a few studies examined these ininterventions, and all of the studies terventions.
Researcher. The researchers imwith a duration of 4 to 6 months implemented reading interventions or in- plemented the interventions in 10
in the design of the studies, it is difficult to generalize the findings. Additional information regarding the effects of the reading interventions on
spelling is needed.
539
studies (Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996;
Grskovic & Belfiore, 1996; MacArthur,
1998; MacArthur, 1999, Studies I and 2;
Masterson & Crede, 1999; McComas et
al., 1996; McNaughton et al., 1997;
Torgesen et al., 2001). Three studies included comparison groups and yielded
mean effect sizes of 1.76 (Darch et al.),
1.01 (Fulk), and 0.46 (Torgesen et al.) on
spelling outcome measures after intervention. Increases in spelling strategy
use, spelling test scores, and percentage of correctly written words in written compositions were reported in the
other studies.
Classroom teacher. Six studies
used the teacher-general or special
education-to implement the interventions (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 including comparison groups yielded
moderate to small effects on spelling outcomes following interventions
(ES = 0.59; Herrera et al.; ES = -0.28, for
measured number of spelling errors;
Lewis et al.). The small effects of the
Lewis et al. study may be a result of
comparing students with LD to students without LD; students with LD
were compared with general education
students receiving typical instruction.
One single-group study also reported
higher spelling outcomes for students
correcting words with a spell checker
in a word processor (technology taught
previously by the teacher) than for students correcting spelling by hand
without the aid of the spell checker
(MacArthur et al.). In contrast, a second single-group study implementing
multiple interventions yielded overall
minimal effects on measures of spelling homework completion and spelling tests (Bryan & Sullivan-Burstein).
Two single-subject studies implemented by teachers found increases in
student ability to correctly spell taught
words. Spelling test scores above 93%
were reported at posttest in one study
(Hughes et al., 2002). Somewhat lower
gains for spelling outcomes were described following a reading intervention (Keel et al., 2001). Student scores
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILI=E
540
(correct letter sequences per minute) at
posttest ranged from 19.53 to 46.77,
demonstrating an increase over the
range of 12.94 to 21.98 at baseline.
Independent shtdent practice. Three
studies implemented interventions requiring students to work independently with speech recognition technology, with the assistance of a tape
recorder providing directions for practice steps, or with a peer (Morton et
al., 1998; Raskind & Higgins, 1999;
Telecsan et al., 1999). Only one study
included a comparison group and reported small effect sizes on standardized measures of spelling (mean ES =
0.14; Raskind & Higgins). Although
four of five students in the study by
Morton et al. performed better when
using a self-correction procedure after
every practice word, their mean scores
on weekly spelling tests remained in
the moderate range (4.8-7.0 words correct out of 10 words) and were not
maintained 1 week later (2.0-4.5 words
correct). In contrast, students working
with peers to study words (Telecsan et
al.) demonstrated increases on spelling
probes to near 100% and also showed
gains in learning their peers' words
(mean gain = 38%).
Discussion
This study was conducted to provide
an updated synthesis on spelling and
reading interventions that are associated with effective spelling outcomes
for students with LD. When appropriate data were available, effect sizes
were calculated and reported. The reported effect sizes serve as a standardized indicator of the difference in outcomes that makes it possible to compare
results across intervention types, duration of intervention, provider, and setting. Computing an average effect size
across the examined interventions was
not possible due to the disparate nature of study designs, intervention
content and duration, and measures of
spelling outcome.
Considering that causal relationships can be inferred with a high
degree of certainty in treatment-
comparison studies, the large effects
from spelling intervention studies that
employed comparison groups are promising. Interventions in the treatmentcomparison studies that provided
students with spelling strategies or
systematic study and word practice
methods resulted in the highest rates
of spelling improvement-a finding
that supports results from previous
syntheses (Fulk & Stormont-Spurgin,
1995; Gordon et al., 1993; McNaughton
et al., 1994). Both the size of these effects and their practical importanceas demonstrated by the high probability of students in the interventions
outperforming their peers in the comparison condition-provide additional
evidence that such instructional practices can yield improved spelling outcomes for students with LD. Other
approaches, including sensorimotor
activities and technology supports for
spelling, yielded moderate effects and
provided students with a slight advantage over students in comparison conditions.
The two treatment-comparison
studies of reading interventions' effects on spelling were moderate, suggesting a robust finding for spelling
even when the interventions are developed to improve outcomes in related
areas such as reading. As spelling was
not the target skill in the reading intervention studies, it was expected that
the practical effect on students' spelling outcomes for these interventions
would not be as pronounced. The
small number of studies examining the
spelling outcomes of reading interventions provides a promising direction
suggesting related benefits for spelling
from reading interventions for students with LD. Together, the findings
from the treatment-comparison studies suggest that directly teaching spelling is beneficial, but that related intervention practices, such as reading, may
also provide benefits for improving
spelling.
The other, nonexperimental studies provided findings of the positive
relationship between spelling interventions and outcomes. However, whereas
many of the nonexperimental studies
reported improved spelling outcomes,
in at least half of the studies, the results
often lacked practical significance. In
other words, the percentage of words
spelled correctly may have improved,
but the posttest scores often indicated
that students were continuing to spell
a large percentage of words inaccurately.
Taking all of the studies into account, this synthesis revealed that spelling outcomes were consistently improved after spelling interventions
that included explicit instruction with
multiple practice opportunities and
immediate corrective feedback after
the word was misspelled. Similar to
previous syntheses, the most recent research also suggests that time delay
methods and systematic study practices result in improved spelling outcomes. Positive findings associated
with the use of error correction procedures are common across present and
previous syntheses as well.
Previous syntheses have reported
studies of computer-assisted instruction and multisensory training; no
such studies were identified in the past
decade. However, the current synthesis found support for the use of morphographic rules and other phonics instruction in the teaching of spelling.
Furthermore, evidence from studies
employing reading interventions and
interventions aimed at spelling with
assistive technology also suggested
positive effects on student spelling.
In general, spelling outcomes
were maintained over time for words
taught in the intervention. Although
few studies examined the generalization of spelling outcomes beyond
taught words, moderate effects were
found in several studies on measures
of untaught words. This could indicate
that students with LD participating in
these interventions are learning practices for attending to word spellings or
obtaining an underlying system of
spelling. More research is needed to examine this hypothesis directly.
The aforementioned effects were
demonstrated on spelling outcomes re-
541
541
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER
NUMBER 6,
39, NUMBER
VOLUME 39,
2006
gardless of the special education placement of students with LD. Participants
in the studies included in this synthesis received special education services
in a variety of settings, including the
general education classroom, resource
room, self-contained classrooms, and
special education schools. For students
receiving services in resource rooms,
self-contained classrooms, and special
education schools, the interventions
yielded improved spelling outcomes.
Less information was available for students who were fully included in general education classrooms. Only three
studies included participants receiving
instruction in a general education
classroom, and two of these studies examined an intervention at a clinic outside the school district.
Although previous research has
reported that researcher-implemented
interventions result in generally higher
outcomes than teacher-implemented
interventions (Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee,
1999), the positive effects on spelling
outcomes in this synthesis did not differentially favor implementation by researchers. Two studies implemented
by researchers obtained large effects
(Darch et al., 2000; Fulk, 1996), but the
results across other studies were similar for researcher- and teacherimplemented interventions. Given that
the majority of interventions in this
study were spelling interventions, it
may be that spelling interventions are
more easily implemented by teachers.
Most of the spelling interventions described in these studies required very
few steps in the teaching process, implemented direct feedback that was
often limited to correcting the word
and practicing again, and featured instruction that remained similar across
days. In many ways, the explanation
for similar spelling outcomes in researcher- and teacher-implemented interventions, as compared with findings from other interventions (e.g.,
reading), may be that spelling interventions are less complicated procedurally and allow greater fidelity to the
treatment protocol by teachers. Implementation of effective interventions by
teachers demonstrates the feasibility of
these interventions and increases the
likelihood for their sustained use.
Although spelling outcomes were
also positive for independent student
practice, generally the spelling outcomes were lower than those following
researcher- or teacher-implemented interventions. However, only three studies in this synthesis included independent student work, and previous
syntheses have reported independent,
student-directed instruction to be as
effective as adult-directed instruction
(McNaughton et al., 1994).
The duration of the interventions
employed in these studies ranged from
2 days to 9 months. The highest effects
in this synthesis were demonstrated
for the shortest interventions (3 weeks
or less). This finding is consistent with
previous research suggesting that the
largest amount of progress is often
seen in interventions conducted over a
briefer period of time (Elbaum, Vaughn,
Hughes, & Moody, 2000). This finding
could suggest that the largest gains are
found early in an intervention and may
be related to an initial boost in learning
due to the addition of instructional
time in an area of weakness or perhaps
even due to the initial novelty of a new
intervention. However, in the case of
this synthesis, all of the studies implementing interventions for less than 3
weeks were spelling interventions, and
all of the interventions of longer duration were either reading interventions
or spelling interventions with assistive
technology. Therefore, the effects of
duration are confounded with the type
of intervention; thus, the factor related
to the higher outcomes is unclear.
Implicationsfor Educators
Although the search criteria incorporated studies addressing students in
kindergarten through 12th grade, the
vast majority of studies for which participant grade-level data were available targeted middle and upper elementary school students (i.e., third
through sixth grade). Therefore, generalizing the findings to students at
grade levels above or below this range
is difficult. The lack of information on
interventions for students with LD at
earlier grade levels (K-i) may be a direct result of the current identification
systems for LD. Few students are identified with LD in kindergarten and first
grade, making it difficult to obtain a
sample of participants with LD.
Additional instructional implications can be culled from the salient features of the effective interventions.
Specifically, there is evidence that providing immediate feedback on spelling accuracy-either teacher-provided
feedback or through a student selfmonitoring procedure-has a positive
effect on spelling (Grskovic & Belfiore,
1996; Hughes et al., 2002; Morton et al.,
1998). For studies that employed assistive technology as part of the spelling
intervention, the use of enhancements
such as speech synthesis or word prediction software were associated with
spelling improvements (Lewis et al.,
1998; MacArthur, 1998; MacArthur,
1999; MacArthur et al., 1996). Teaching
a weekly list of words to accuracy with
multiple practice opportunities was
another common characteristic of most
effective interventions (e.g., Fulk, 1996;
Morton et al., 1998). Finally, this synthesis indicates an association between
explicit spelling instruction and improved spelling accuracy (Darch et al.,
2000; Masterson & Crede, 1999).
Limitations and Directionsfor
Future Research
The research designs employed by
these intervention studies limit the
conclusions that can be drawn from
this synthesis. Additional high-quality,
randomized group or other group designs are recommended to provide
convincing evidence for the effectiveness of specific spelling interventions
for students with LD. Particularly
needed are experimental designs with
younger students (Grades 1-3) and
older students (Grades 7-12).
Relatively few reading intervention studies were identified that examined spelling outcomes for students
542
JOURNAL OF LEARNNG DISABILMES
with LD. By systematically examining
the effects of reading interventions
on spelling outcomes through highquality experimental studies, educa-
tors and researchers will gain a better
understanding of whether improved
spelling is a value-added effect of
reading-related interventions. Because
spelling shares a reciprocal relationship with reading (Carver, 2003; Ehri,
1997; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan,
& Vermeulen, 2003), the results from
additional research in this area will
also help educators to better address
the needs of students with LD who
have not yet mastered the sophisticated knowledge of letters, sounds,
and syllable patterns needed to accurately spell words.
Fifteen of the studies in this syn-
thesis used only a researcher-developed
measure of spelling. As discussed earlier, such measures are often associated
with inflated effect sizes because (a) the
researcher-developed measures are
generally intervention specific, whereas
standardized measures assess generalized knowledge, and (b) the researcherdeveloped tests will likely have lower
variance than a standardized measure.
Although researcher-developed measures are valuable indicators of words
learned through the intervention, a
standardized measure provides valuable information on relative performance in spelling.
This synthesis sought to provide a
comprehensive examination of intervention effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Although
the results indicate positive effects
from a variety of intervention types,
settings, and providers, it is clear that
there is much to learn about how to
best address spelling in readingrelated interventions and how to teach
students with LD to generalize spelling knowledge and skill to novel tasks.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jeanne Wanzek, PhD,is a researchassociateat
The Universityof Texas at Austin. Her research
interests include learning disabilities, beginning reading,and effective instructionaldesign.
Sharon Vaughn, PhD, is the H.E. Hartfelder/
Southland Corp Regents Chair in Human Development at The Universihjof Texas at Austin
and Professor of Special Education. She has
seroed as Editor in Chief of the Journal of
Learning Disabilities and Co-editorof Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. She is
currently working on several large-scale intervention studies exaaminingeffective practicesfor
students with reading difficulties, disabilities,
and English languagelearners at riskfor reading problems. lade Wexler, MEd, is a doctoral
candidate in special education at The University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests
include effective reading instructionalpractices
for secondary struggling readers and teacher
preparation.Elizabeth Swanson is a doctoral
candidate in the Departmentof Special Education at The Universihy of Texas at Austin. Her
research interests are effective reading instructionfor students with learningdisabilitiesand
social justice for people with disabilities.
Meaghan Edmonds is a research associateat
the Vaughn Gross Centerfor Readingand Language Arts at The University of Texas at
Austin. Ms. Ednionds holds master'sdegrees in
Curriculum and Instruction and Program
Evaluation. Her research interests include observation methods and comprehension instruction. Ae-Hwa Kim, PhD, is an assistant
professor in special education at Dankook Universihy in Korea. Her research interests include
effective instructionalpractices in readingand
mathematics and computer-assistedinstruction
for students with learningdisabilities.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relations
among developmental skills and writing
skills in primary and intermediate grade
writers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85,478-508.
Bear, D. R., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. The Reading
Teacher, 52, 222-242.
Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean change measures. The British
Journalof Mathenmatical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 257-278.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., &
Raskind, W. (2001). Language phenotype
for reading and writing disability: A fainily 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 and
reading acquisition in the intermediate
grades: Shared and unique variance.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinany
Journal, 6,161-196.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D.,
Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., et
al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications
for the simple view of writing. Journal of
EducationalPsychology, 94, 291-304.
Bos, C. S., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategiesfor
teachingstudents with learningand behavior
problems (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bryan, T., & Sullivan-Burstein, K. (1998).
Teacher-selected strategies for improving
homework completion. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 263-275.
Bryant, N. D., Drabin, I. RI, & Gettinger, M.
(1981). Effects of varying unit size on
spelling achievement in learning disabled children. Journalof LearningDisabilities, 14, 200-203.
Carver, R. P. (2003). The highly lawful relationships among pseudoword decoding,
word identification, spelling, listening,
and reading. Scientiftc Studies of Reading,
7, 127-154.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statisticalpower analysisfor
the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Darch, C., Kim, S., & Johnson, J. H. (2000).
The strategic spelling skills of students
with learning disabilities: The results of
two studies. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 15-26.
Ehri, L. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost.
In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol
(Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theonr,
andpracticeacross languages(pp. 237-269).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., &
Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are
one-to-one tutoring programs in reading
for elementary students at-risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 605-619.
Fulk, B. M. (1996). The effects of combined
strategy and attribution training on LD
adolescents' spelling performance. Exceptionality, 6, 13-27.
Fulk, B. M., & Stormont-Spurgin, M. (1995).
Spelling interventions for students with
disabilities: A review. The Journalof Special
Education,28,488-513.
Gettinger, M., Bryant, N. D., & Fayne, H. R.
(1982). Designing spelling instruction for
learning-disabled children: An emphasis
VOLUME 39, NUMBER 6, NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
reviewprocess/study-standards_final
on unit size, distributed practice, and
.pdf
training for transfer. The Journal of Special
Keel, M. C., Slaton, D. B., & Blackhurst, A.
Education, 16, 439-448.
E. (2001). Acquisition of content area voGood, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. B.
cabulary for students with learning dis(1998). Effective academic interventions
abilities. Education & Treatment of Chilin the United States: Evaluating and endren, 24, 4-71.
hancing the acquisition of early reading
skills. School Psychology Review, 27(1), Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S.
(2004). Graphic organizers and their ef45-56.
fects on the reading comprehension of
Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S.
students with learning disabilities. Jour(1993). Spelling interventions: A review
nal of Learning Disabilities,37,105-118.
of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabili- Lewis, R. B., Graves, A. W., Ashton, T. M.,
& Kieley, C. L. (1998). Word processing
ties. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practools for students with learning disabilitice, 8, 175-181.
ties: A comparison of strategies to inGraham, S. (2000). Should the natural learncrease text entry speed. Learning Disabiliing approach replace spelling instructies Research & Practice,13, 95-108.
tion? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing
235-247.
with speech synthesis and word predicGraham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa,
tion: Effects on the dialogue journal writB. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling ining of students with learning disabilities.
struction to the spelling, writing, and
LearningDisability Quarterly,21, 151-166.
reading, or poor spellers. Journal of EduMacArthur, C. A. (1999). Word prediction
cational Psychology, 94, 669-686.
for students with severe spelling problems.
Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C.,
Learning Disability Quarterly,22, 158-172.
Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J.
(2003). Morphological development in MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Haynes, J. B.,
& De La Paz, S. (1996). Spelling checkers
children's writing. Journal of Educational
and students with learning disabilities:
Psychology, 95, 752-760.
Performance comparisons and impact on
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., BeebeFrankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M.
spelling. The Journal of Special Education,
30, 35-57.
(2000). Treatment integrity in learning
disabilities intervention research: Do we Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999).
Learning to spell: Implications for assessreally know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research &
ment and intervention. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 243Practice,15, 198-205.
254.
Grskovic, J. A., & Belfiore, P. J. (1996). Improving the spelling performance of stu- McComas, J. J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J.,
Asmus, J. M., Richman, D., & Stoner, B.
dents with disabilities. Journal of Behav(1996). Brief experimental analysis of
ioral Education, 6, 343-354.
stimulus prompts for accurate respondHerrera, J. A., Logan, C. H., Cooker, P. G.,
ing on academic tasks in an outpatient
Morris, D. P., & Lyman, D. E. (1997).
clinic. Journalof Applied BehaviorAnalysis,
Phonological awareness and phonetic29, 397-401.
graphic conversion: A study of the effects
of two intervention paradigms with McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A common language effect size statistic. Psycholearning disabled children. Learning dislogical Bulletin, 111, 361-365.
ability or learning difference? Reading InMcNaughton, D., Hughes, C. A., & Clark,
provement, 34, 71-89.
K. (1994). Spelling instruction for stuHughes, T. A., Frederick, L. D., & Keel,
dents with learning disabilities: ImplicaM. C. (2002). Learning to effectively imtions for research and practice. Learning
plement constant time delay procedures
DisabilityQuarterly, 17, 169-185.
to teach spelling. LearningDisabilityQuarMcNaughton, D., Hughes, C., & Ofiesh, N.
terly, 25, 210-222.
(1997). Proofreading for students with
Institute of Education Sciences. (2003).
learning disabilities: Integrating comWhat Works Clearinghouse study review
puter and strategy use. Learning Disabilistandards. Retrieved January 10, 2005,
ties Research & Practice,12, 16-28.
from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/
543
Morton, W. L., Heward, W. L., & Alber, S. R.
(1998). When to self-correct? A comparison of two procedures on spelling performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8,
321-335.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R.,
Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills in at-risk second grade readers and at-risk fourth grade writers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730742.
Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1999).
Speaking to read: The effects of speech
recognition technology on the reading
and spelling performances of children
with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 251-281.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures
of 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 simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journalof Educational Psychology, 74, 166-169.
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes. Review of
EducationalResearch, 68, 277-321.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C.
(1999). Interventionsfor students with learning disabilities.New York: Guilford.
Telecsan, B. L., Slaton, D. B., & Stevens,
D. B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching students with learning disabilities to deliver
time delay instruction. Journal of Behavioral 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 instruction for children with severe reading
disabilities: Immediate and long-term
outcomes from two instructional approaches. 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 for
young children with disabilities: A synthesis of group design studies. Remedial
and Special Education,24, 2-15.
Zipprich, M. A. (1995). Teaching web making as a guided planning tool to improve
student narrative writing. Remedial and
Special Education, 16, 3-15.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: A Synthesis of Spelling and Reading Interventions and
Their Effects on
SOURCE: Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 no6 N/D 2006
PAGE(S): 528-43
WN: 0630502284007
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.proedinc.com/
Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company.
All rights reserved.