The document summarizes key points from a presentation on effective interventions for improving word-level reading. It finds that interventions can be categorized based on standard score gains as minimally effective (0-5 SS), moderately effective (6-9 SS), or highly effective (12.5-25 SS). Highly effective interventions aggressively address phonemic awareness issues and explicitly teach phonics and reading practice.

1. • Next event – Thursday, November 10, 6:00-8:30
• Palmer Elementary School - Baldwinsville School District
• TOPIC: Analysis of the Types of Texts Used for Reading Instruction / Dr. Kristen Munger
• Congrats to our Reading League! Huge turnouts at 5 events…426+ people have come!
• Donations: New large volume printer/scanner purchased - thank you. Tonight’s raffles
and bottle return money as well as your donation at the door will be used for video
production – videos of all events to be online soon.
• NEWS! The Reading League has the support of Onondaga County Executive Joanie
Mahoney, to whom we will soon provide a “road map” outlining the support required
from state /county resources for: monthly events, PD in schools, summer trainings, staff,
and more.
Announcements

2. Connecting to previous events
January Advances in understanding reading development and difficulty – ended with a bit
about effective interventions ✔
March Emphasis on what a sight word truly is and orthographic mapping
✔
May Speech and language basis of reading and the “red flags” in speech signaling future
reading difficulty ✔
July Perspectives on dyslexia: advocacy and partnership
✔

3. TONIGHT’S GOAL
Participants will be able to identify the components in
highly effective reading instruction and intervention.
~*~
Once you know the “why,” you can adapt your programs
and put these effective strategies into practice.

4. A Close Look at
Effective vs. Ineffective Interventions to
Improve Word Level Reading
David Kilpatrick, Ph.D.
September 8, 2016 VENUE: LYNCOURT SCHOOL

5. CASE STUDY: Eugene – November 2nd gr.
Weak word level reading, which are worse under timed conditions. What connections
can we see in this data?
Standard/ Percentile Grade Descriptive
Scaled Score Rank Equivalent Level
Phonological Awareness Skills
CTOPP Elision 7 16th 1.2 below avg
CTOPP Segmenting Words 10 50th <2.0 average
PAST Level G Early 1 below avg
Oral Blending Skill
CTOPP Blending Words 10 50th 2.4 average
Background Information
PIAT-R General Information 95 37th 1.8 average
Word Identification
TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency 75 5th 1.0 below avg
WRAT-3 Reading 82 12th 1.3 below avg
WRMT-Word Identification 83 13th 1.4 below avg
Phonics/Nonsense Word Reading
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 75 5th 1.0 below avg
WRMT – Word Attack 91 27th 1.3 average

6. Ways to think about effectiveness – weakest to strongest
Subjective judgment: “She seems to be improving!”
*But is she catching up compared to her peers?
Curriculum Oriented Assessments:
 Fountas & Pinnell levels
 CBM of fluency
*She is making gains but is she catching up? These still don’t tell us if
her peers have moved at a faster rate - the gap may actually be widening!

7. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Effect Sizes: Measure how a treatment group did against a control group.
Used at the research level and to evaluate programs.
 This “gold standard” has an aura of “scientific-ness.”
 Used by What Works Clearinghouse. BUT can be misleading:
Standard Scores:
Allow us to see if a student is gaining compared to others in the country.
Standard scores are used to evaluate programs and individual children.
75
80
85
90
95
Small
effect size
because both
groups grew
a lot
Large
effect size but
treatment group
stayed the same
and control
group got worse!
Ways to think about effectiveness – weakest to strongest

8. Standard Scores
• Most standardized tests use standard scores. Used by
practitioners and researchers, these tests include the Wechsler,
Woodcock-Johnson, Kaufman, and many if not most
speech/language tests.
• These tests have a mean of 100 - this means that the average
child (50th percentile) has a standard score of 100.
• These tests also have a standard deviation of 15 (see next slide)

9. By Mwtoews - Own work, based (in concept) on figure by Jeremy Kemp, on 2005-02-09, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1903871
THE NORMAL CURVE
A simple way to think of a standard deviation (SD) is “one big step away from the
average child” - either better than or worse than that child.
-3 SD -2 SD -1 SD 1 SD 2 SD 3SD
55 70 85 100 115 130 145

10. Standard scores - so what range is my child in?
• 130 + = very superior (or very high) (98th percentile or higher)
• 120-129 = superior (or high) (91st-97th percentile)
• 110-119 = above average (75th-90th percentile)
• 90-109 = average (25th-73rd percentile)
• 80-89 = below average (16th-23rd percentile)
• 70-79 = well below average (2nd-8th percentile)
• <70 = deficient (or low) (2nd percentile or lower)

11. Standard Scores are like a race. They provide a point of reference!
Standard scores show where you are in relation to others in a race.
Everyone starts at a different point. Everyone is running forward.
What order are you in amongst the other runners (i.e., in comparison to others in
your grade)? Did you move ahead in the rankings at any point?
Other measures of effectiveness don’t tell us this.
Remember - not coming in last doesn’t mean I’m a fast runner.
“They’re doing better” may mean we succeeded only in teaching them how to jump
more efficiently over hurdles. We need to remove the hurdles from the track!

12. Startling insights from a close examination of SS gains made in intervention studies!
S TA N DA R D S C O R E G A I N S I N WO R D L E V E L R E A D I N G

13. 3 CATEGORIES
When the huge batch of 80%-90% of intervention studies with 0-9 SS
gains is subdivided into two groups, 3 Categories exist:
0 to 5 SS
Minimally effective
Mostly 2-4 SS points
6 to 9 SS
Moderately effective
Mostly 6-7 SS points; one had 9
12.5 to 25 SS
Highly effective
Mostly 14-17 SS points
80%-90% of intervention studies

14. What factors can explain the substantial difference in word-level
reading outcomes of 0-25 SS point gains?
Factors most commonly examined in research to see if they are what made the difference in word-level reading:
 Socioeconomic Status: makes a slight difference in word-level reading, but HUGE for
comprehension.
 Age (e.g., 2nd grade, 7th grade): There is a “window of opportunity.” But “the earlier the
better” factor is much smaller than people imagine and doesn’t even show up
consistently in studies. Research indicates we should never avoid teaching decoding.
 Severity of difficulty (e.g., bottom 2%, bottom 10%, 25%): Much smaller effect than
people imagine. All levels of severity showed about 1 SD gain in the studies with highly
successful outcomes.
 Length of intervention (e.g., 35 hrs, 60 hrs, 100 hrs): no statistically significant difference
in most studies
 Group size (e.g., 1:1, 1:3): no statistically significant difference in most studies

15. What factors can explain the substantial difference in word
level reading outcomes of 0-25 SS point gains?
Of the 5 factors that would seem to be important for word-reading intervention
outcomes…
3 RARELY have an impact on outcome (severity, length of intervention, group size)
2 have a very SMALL impact on outcome (socioeconomic status and age)
Surprising…but actually good news!
None of the 6-8 recent metanalyses
noticed the 0-25 SS difference in
outcomes!

16. 0 to 5 SS: Minimally effective
*mostly 2-4 SS points
Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. (2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with
learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 263–281.
Mitchell, C., & Begeny, J. C. (2014). Improving student reading through parents’ implementation of a structured reading program. School
Psychology Review, 43(1), 41–58.
Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best evidence
synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322.
Torgesen, J., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., ... Haan, C. (2007). National assessment of Title I interim report to
Congress: Volume II: Closing the reading gap, first year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers.Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Leroux, A., Roberts, G., Denton, C., Barth, A., & Fletcher, J. (2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for
eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(6), 515–525.
A sampling of many studies…

17. Minimally effective interventions
0 to 5 SS improvements
MOST: explicit, systematic phonics
• TWO TYPES: 1) Meaning-based and 2) Code based - explicit, systematic
phonics
ALL: reading practice with connected text
NONE: phoneme awareness/analysis

18. 6 to 9 SS: Moderately effective
Mostly 6-7 SS points; one had 9
Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J., Dorn, S., & Sharon, T. (2003). Comparison
of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 34, 101–116.
Frijters, J. C., Lovett, M. W., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2013). Four methods of identifying change in the context of a
multiple component reading intervention for struggling middle school readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26,
539–563.
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., & Frijters, J. C. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers
in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 151–169.
Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers
in multiple grades. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 119–134.
A sampling of many studies…

19. 6 to 9 SS: Moderately effective
Mostly 6-7 SS points; one had 9
ALL: explicit, systematic phonics
ALL: reading practice with connected text (decodable; no meaning-
based, leveled text)
ALL BUT ONE trained “basic phoneme awareness” - segmentation
and/or blending - which is mastered by most by end of 1st grade

20. 12.5 to 25 SS: Highly effective
Mostly 14-17 SS points
Alexander, A. W., Andersen, H. G., Heilman, P. C., Voeller, K. K. S., & Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Phonological awareness training and remediation of
analytic decoding deficits in a group of severe dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 193–206.
Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., ... Papanicolau, A. C. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain
activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1213.
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, dis- abilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–
58, 78.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to prevent early reading
difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 40–56.
Truch, S. (1994). Stimulating basic reading processes using auditory discrimination in depth. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 60–80.

21. 12.5 to 25 SS: Highly effective
Mostly 14-17 SS points
ALL: explicit, systematic phonics
ALL: reading practice with connected text (decodable; no meaning-
based, leveled text)
ALL: aggressively addressed and “fixed” phoneme awareness (PA)
issues using advanced PA training

22. Explicit, systematic phonics remains essential
ALL 3 Categories had explicit, systematic phonics (although some of the studies in
the 0-5 minimally effective category did not)
Explicit, systematic phonics is essential,
but not “the one and only answer”

23. Phoneme PROFICIENCY
0 to 5 SS
Minimally effective
NONE
formally trained
phoneme
awareness
6 to 9 SS
Moderately effective
ALL BUT ONE
trained “basic: phoneme
awareness – segmenting and
blending, which are typically
mastered at end of 1st grade
12.5 to 25 SS
Highly effective
ALL
aggressively addressed and “fixed”
PA issues using advanced PA
training
(e.g., “Say ‘bent’…now say ‘bent’ and
change the /n/ to /s/”)

24. WHY does phoneme proficiency make
interventions highly effective?
Phoneme proficiency is the foundation for….orthographic mapping
…which leads to the development of sight words.
SIGHT WORDS……..

25. REVIEW from March 2016 Event
What is a Sight Word?
Any instantly familiar word that is recognized “on sight” – with a mere
glance.
• Words that you already know and don’t have to sound out
• It doesn’t matter if it is phonically regular or irregular
• Any word that is familiar and instantly accessible
• Any word that, upon looking at it, you can’t suppress reading it when you look at it.
• It is THAT instantaneous!

26. Orthographic Mapping
Connection forming process between pronounced phonemes and the order of printed letters.
Those particular letters become unitized – known as a unit..
CAUTION: This does not mean instruction using whole word recognition, whereby
you teach readers to read by memorizing whole words. No No NO!
“father…
/f/ /ah/ /th/ /r/”
Fathom how the
f a th er went
farther than the
fatter farmer.
1. Start with the
phonemes in a word
you know
2. Map/connect those
phonemes to the correct
sequence of letters. It becomes
a unit. A sight word.

27. Orthographic Mapping is needed for
Efficient Word Level Reading (aka fluency)

28. Before we break…

29. 3 Part “Formula” in highly effective interventions
1 Aggressively train PA to the advanced level
2 *Teach and/or reinforce letter-sound knowledge & decoding
skills (using systematic and explicit phonics)
3 Extensive opportunities to read connected text
*Note: For students making slow progress in phonic decoding development, phoneme awareness training is
often what provides them with what they need to move forward.

30. Advanced PA often missing in instruction and
interventions used in schools
PA assessment and training is typically just segmentation / blending
• Important but only takes a child to an ending 1st grade level
• Advanced PA needed for orthographic mapping
WHY IS ADVANCED PA MISSING?
• People /publishers unaware that PA continues to grow past 1st grade – it is treated as
inconsequential!
• PA training commonly and wrongly assumed not helpful for older students
• PA assessments only take us to the basic level – current assessments do not feature the
advanced level (with one exception)

31. Segmenting & Blending:
Critical Precursors of Advanced PA
crawl (awareness of phonemes)
walk (segmenting/blending phonemes)
 Example: student can segment sounds in
“mop” /m/ /o/ /p/ and blend /s//u//n/ into “sun”
run (advanced phoneme manipulation)
 Example: Tell student, “Say ‘spin.’ Now say ‘spin’ but instead of /p/ say /k/.”
Revisit PA development progression on TRL Knowledge Sheet from March 2016 event

32. Word Level Interventions Commonly Used
(Why RTI is having limited results)
Interventions in the empirical studies literature
with 2 to 5 SS point improvements in
word level reading:
• Repeated Readings
• READ180
• Reading Recovery (all independent studies)
• Fast ForWord
• Read Naturally
• Failure Free Reading
• Great Leaps
Commonly used without knowing that their
studies have shown limited results!
• Rarely do students “catch up” with these
approaches
• Many of these have studies with “statistically
significant” results & call themselves “research
based”
• Standard score gains of 3 sometimes turn out
to be “statistically significant,” even if
educationally meaningless

33. Word Level Interventions Commonly Used
(Why RTI is having limited results)
Interventions with
15-22 SS point improvements (HUGE!) in phonic decoding & only
3-5 SS (LIMITED) in general word identification:
• “Gold Standard” phonic programs
• Wilson, Orton-Gillingham, DISTAR/ Reading Mastery
They typically do not develop advanced PA proficiency, which is needed for orthographic
mapping/sight word development
Research shows: poor response to these programs is based on poor PA

34. IMPORTANT POINTS
• Reading comprehension interventions when there are significant
word reading difficulties?
Minimally helpful
• Some students simply cannot learn phonic skills?
False. This is nowhere in the research
and it guarantees a student will not catch up.

35. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
INTERVENTIONS
Prevention
and Intervention

36. TIER 1 PREVENTION
of Word-Level Reading Difficulties
• Early, rigorous development of PA and LS skills in K-1 dramatically reduces the number
of struggling readers
• Tier 1 instruction – What is effective K-1 for PREVENTION?
• Phoneme Awareness (segmentation and blending is developmentally appropriate K-1)
• Letter-Sound Instruction
• Connecting PA to word-level reading
• Good teaching techniques based on general learning principles
• Seems to be the focus of RTI efforts

37. Highly Successful Instruction for K-1
Programs actually used in studies:
• Researcher designed for specific experiment – not commercially available 
• Road to the Code (Benita Blachman et al.)
• phoneme Awareness in Young Children (Marilyn Adams et al.)
• Ladders to Literacy (O’Connor et al.)
• Interactive Strategies Approach (Donna Scanlon et al.)
Programs based on elements used in highly successful studies:
• Florida Center for Reading Research (pieces from researcher designed approaches) – all free! www.fcrr.org
• Rosner program – long track record of success in schools
• Equipped for Reading Success (based on Rosner; studies on the way)
• EBLI
These are for K-1 , not 2-12 remediation!
• They do not train to the level of advanced PA – segmenting/blending is appropriate for K-1

38. Highly Successful Programs for
Programs actually used in studies:
• Researcher designed for specific experiment – not commercially available 
• Lindamood (ADD now LiPS) - be cautious about Seeing Stars being promoting now (in the 0-9 group)
• Interactive Skills Program (now in book form)
• PhonoGraphix
• Read, Write, Type (only one study so far)
• Discover Reading (Reading Foundation, Alberta, Canada)
Programs based on elements used in highly successful studies:
• Rosner program – long track record of success in schools
• Equipped for Reading Success (based on Rosner; studies on the way) - the only one based upon Orthographic Mapping–easier to
implement (based on the Rosner program)
• EBLI
Remember, ALL studies with highly successful outcomes (12-25 SS group) did “advanced” phoneme awareness training!

39. What about
Road to Reading?
Discrepancy issue of Effect Sizes vs. Standard Scores – Effect Size data says it’s
good!
When a low achiever moves, sometimes they’re moving into the average range.
A lot of schools using this…adding in advance phoneme awareness training is
a good suggestion.

40. ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
to look for in your interventions
If your school is not using commercially published interventions, ask yourselves:
“Do our program/curriculum/strategies”
1 Aggressively train phoneme awareness to the advanced level?
2 Teach and/or reinforce letter-sound knowledge & decoding skills (systematic and
explicit phonics)?
3 Provide extensive opportunities to read connected text?”
You may have to piece it together - many programs do not have all of this. Commercially
published programs will not feature standard scores.

41. Words of wisdom and caution
PLEASE REMEMBER
It’s a DIET of necessary skills and appropriate practice that is important.
Progress monitor. Progress monitor. Progress monitor.
You can’t eat carrots and live forever. In other words, you can’t do something deemed desirable and never
stop to check if it’s working.
Tier 1 – Tier 2/3 ----both have to be solid. The Core Program matters. It’s the main diet.
The teacher’s knowledge about phonemes, phonics, alphabetics, etc. matters just as much!

42. KNOWLEDGE OF
“THE WHY”
1. WHY aggressively train PA to the advanced level?
Orthographic mapping – see next slide

43. There’s a singular
developmental path
to typical
word-level reading

44. Each Phase of Word Reading Development
depends on its Phonological Counterpart
Phonological Development
1. Early Phonological Awareness
Rhyming, Alliteration, Syllable Segmentation,
First Sound Awareness
2. Basic phoneme Awareness
Segmentation & Blending
3. Advanced phoneme Awareness
Best assessed via phoneme manipulation (timed)
Word Reading Development
1. Letter Name & Letter Sound
Knowledge
1. Decoding
1. Orthographic Mapping (i.e., efficient sight
word acquisition - a rudimentary version of #3
overlaps with #2)

45. YES OR NO? PA Instruction Strategies
Rigby Series

46. YES OR NO? PA Instruction
And who is this appropriate for?

47. YES OR NO? PA Instruction
And who is this appropriate for?

48. YES OR NO? PA Instruction
Asking student, “What letter does /s/ /u/ /n/ start with?”

49. KNOWLEDGE OF
“THE WHY”
2. Why teach and/or reinforce letter-sound
knowledge & decoding skills (phonics)?
We have an alphabet – it is a code.
Once readers learn the sounds that letters make, they can decode
words never seen before. Good decoders read words more
accurately and automatically, leading to fluency— which is strongly
related to reading comprehension (Snow et al ., 1998) .

50. YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit
Systematic Phonics/Decoding
High frequency words (Dolch words) on flash cards?

51. YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit
Systematic Phonics/Decoding
-at
bat
cat
fat
sat
mat
rat
-in
fin
pin
tin
bin
win
shin
-ine
dine
fine
line
mine
pine
shine

52. YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit
Systematic Phonics/Decoding
“Look at the
picture.”
“Look at the first
letters and make
your best guess.”
We like to wash the apples.
We like to peel the apples.
We like to cut the apples.
We like to mix the apples.
We like to bake the apple pie.
We like to smell the apple pie.
We like to eat the apple pie!
Fleming, M. (2009). Apple Pie. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
LLI Green System Book 44, Level B

53. YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit
Systematic Phonics/Decoding
LLI Green System Grade 1 (Green Level) lesson guide
Volume 1, Lesson 41, Page 247
Fountas, I., & Pinell, G. S.
(2008). Leveled Literacy
Intervention.
Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

54. YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit Systematic Phonics/Decoding
My Sidewalks Grade 1
Volume 1, Unit 3Week 1 Day 2 Page 2
Juel, C., Paratore, J. R.,
Simmons, D., &Vaughn,
S. (2008). My sidewalks
on reading street.
Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.

55. Scott Foresman 2004
YES OR NO? Letter-Sound/Explicit Systematic Phonics Decoding

56. KNOWLEDGE OF
“THE WHY”
3. Provide extensive opportunities to read connected text?
REASONS WHY:
Opportunities to practice elements learned in phonics lessons.
Build fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and more!

57. YES OR NO?
Extensive Opportunities to read connected text?
Round robin reading / popcorn reading
SSR/DEAR
Independent reading
Predictable/leveled texts

58. CASE STUDY: Eugene – November 2nd gr.
Weak word level reading, which are worse under timed conditions. What connections
can we see in this data?
Standard/ Percentile Grade Descriptive
Scaled Score Rank Equivalent Level
Phonological Awareness Skills
CTOPP Elision 7 16th 1.2 below avg
CTOPP Segmenting Words 10 50th <2.0 average
PAST Level G Early 1 below avg
Oral Blending Skill
CTOPP Blending Words 10 50th 2.4 average
Background Information
PIAT-R General Information 95 37th 1.8 average
Word Identification
TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency 75 5th 1.0 below avg
WRAT-3 Reading 82 12th 1.3 below avg
WRMT-Word Identification 83 13th 1.4 below avg
Phonics/Nonsense Word Reading
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency 75 5th 1.0 below avg
WRMT – Word Attack 91 27th 1.3 average

59. DID YOU NOTICE?
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE SOUNDS.
Drawing attention to the sound structure of words.
Phonemes.
Letter sounds.
Words are written sounds.

60. Contact us any time!
David Kilpatrick, Ph.D. david.kilpatrick@cortland.edu
Maria Murray, Ph.D. maria@thereadingleague.com
John Garruto, D.Ed., NCSP jgarruto@oswego.org