Chen 2014.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial 1 intervention group (phonics + sight word) and 1 control group (alternative training)
Participants	Location/setting: grade 2 students from a regular public sector in Quebec, Canada Criteria: grade 2 students, considered to be 'at‐risk readers,' who fell 1 SD below mean on the GRADE (standardised test). Grade 2 (mean 2.89; SD 0.90). Using the GRADE, a stanine score was calculated corresponding to the raw scores. Grade 2 stanine score (mean 5; SD 2) Recruits: 18 grade 2 students Sex: 7 male; 11 female Mean age: 7.06 years (SD 0.24; range 7–8 years) Ethnicity: bilingual speakers of English and French Sample size: 18 bilingual (French and English) students Allocation: stratified randomisation – participants were matched with another participant in the same class who scored similarly and in order of predetermined importance on the assessments: "phonemic blending assessment, word recognition test from the GRADE, spelling test and reading motivation" (quote, p 202). Within the pair, participants were randomly assigned to either GPC or word usage group using an online random number generator (www.random.org). Intervention group: n = 9 complex GPC group (mean age, SD, and range not reported) Control group: n = 9 word usage group (mean age, SD, and range not reported)
Interventions	Intervention: complex GPC and sight word training. Phonics was taught in the context of words (both regular and irregular). For example, the sound /sh/ was taught in the word /she/. Participants were shown a target GPC within a target word which was written in a different colour to the other letters, pulled out the target GPC from the word using physical letters, heard the word in text as the researcher read a story, had to identify the words in the text containing the target GPC, then had to read the target word aloud after. The researcher also explained to the participants where the GPC is usually located within words. Control: word usage condition. Lessons focused on the usage of target words in sentences through sentence activities where participants had to use the target word in the correct way, and then by writing sentences that used the target word. Review sessions occurred 3 times, each after 10 words were taught, and then again on the final day to review all words that were taught. Procedure: 20 minutes/group (4–5 students) outside the classroom. 3–4 sessions/week for 9 consecutive weeks, with a total of 30 sessions. 600 minutes total (or 10 hours)
Outcomes	Time of post‐test: not explicitly reported but likely immediately Primary outcomes: accuracy word reading (word recognition for words with taught GPCs; word recognition assessment from GRADE), accuracy word reading (word recognition for all words), spelling (experimental test: spell 9 words that do not contain target GPC), and blending (at pretest only; phonemic blending test by Pennington Publishing www.penningtonpublishing.com) Secondary outcome: reading motivation (reading and self‐concept scale)
Notes	Grade 1 students were also reported in the study; however, they did not meet criteria for 'at‐risk' readers and were therefore not included in this review. Correspondence with authors for more information on intervention: "Our aim was to use regular words so the students could transfer their learning to other words containing the same GPC" (quote). The researcher also conducted > 4 hours of informal classroom observations. In the classroom, GPC units were taught on the basis of individual words rather than as a theme, as is taught in the intervention. Chief investigator asked for further information to clarify regularity of words used in GPC training and confirmation of group size. Study start and end dates: not reported Funding: not reported Potential/declared conflicts of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: participants randomly assigned to group using online random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: could not foresee assignment due to central allocation of participants to groups.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: no information provided; however, participants were children with little understanding of reading treatment techniques and hence were unlikely to understand allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: no information provided; however, this study used objective tests of literacy‐related skills that were designed to avoid assessor bias.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no information provided; however, Table 2 suggested that all 38 participants contributed data at pre‐ and post‐test, suggesting no attrition.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: phonemic blending was used to select and match groups. Data reported pretest but no data available at post‐test.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: none apparent