Skip to main content
. 2018 Nov 14;2018(11):CD009115. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3

Levy 1997.

Methods Randomised controlled trial
4 intervention groups (rime, onset, phoneme, whole word (not relevant)) and 1 control group (untrained)
Participants Location/setting: grade 2 children from 16 schools in Canada
Criteria: < 7 words read correctly on the WRMT Word Identification test; or < 7 words read correctly on the WRAT‐R Word Identification test; or < 7 training words read correctly
Recruits: 125 English‐speaking children. Mean performance on WRMT at Grade 1.2 level and Word Identification subtest of WRAT‐R scores in preschool range. On average only read 3 or 4 words from the set of 32 words to be trained
Sex: not reported
Mean age: not reported (SD not reported; range 5.9–7.9 years)
Ethnicity: not reported
Sample size: 100 English‐speaking children
Allocation: children were randomly allocated to 5 groups: 4 intervention groups and 1 control group. 3 intervention groups did phonics training, so all these children were grouped together for the intervention group. The 4th group did whole word training (not relevant). The 5th (untrained) group was used as the control group.
Intervention groups:

  1. rime: n = 25 (sex, mean age, SD, and range not reported)

  2. onset: n = 25 (sex, mean age, SD, and range not reported)

  3. phoneme: n = 25 (sex, mean age, SD, and range not reported)

  4. whole word: n = 25 (sex, mean age, SD, and range not reported)


Control group: n = 25 (sex, mean age, SD, and range not reported)
Interventions Interventions:
"The four training groups all learned to read the same set of 32 words, as well as participated in the classroom program... On each day of training, children in all groups read once only the entire set of 32 words printed on individual index cards. The groups differed in how the words were grouped during learning, and in the method of instruction" (quote, p 366)

  1. rime: "four written words of a rime family were shown together. First 15 days or until all 32 words pronounced correctly on 2 successive days: common rime segment for each family block was written in red to highlight the shared orthographic segment" (quote, p 366). Following 15 days or when criterion was met: "10 black and white trials where the child pronounced the 32 words printed in black ink once a day" (quote, p 368)

  2. onset: "four written words per family block shared the initial consonant(s)‐vowel segment" (quote, p 368). 15 colour trial days (or 2 successive correct readings): initial consonant(s)‐vowel segment written in red. Following the 15 days or when criterion was met: maximum of 10 black and white trials (quote, p 368)

  3. phoneme: "four written words for each block were randomly selected from the 32 words, with the restriction that no two onset or rime family members could be in the same block. The same eight random blocks were used on each day of training. There was no consistent relation among phonemic units in the four words, but for each word the letters of each phoneme were printed in a different colour... maximum of 15 colour trials and 10 black and white trials" (quote, p 368)

  4. whole word: "four words per block randomly selected... words written in black ink... experiment read each word with no segmentation" (quote, p 368)


Control: received regular classroom regimen during the training phase.
Procedure: pre‐test phase, training phase, post‐training phase. One‐to‐one training
Outcomes Time of post‐test: immediately after training completed
Primary outcomes: non‐word reading accuracy (experimental: 48 new non‐words) and regular word reading accuracy (experimental: 48 new regular words)
Notes

  1. Paper presented 2 experiments. Experiment 1 focused on non‐readers while experiment 2 focused on poor readers. Therefore, we only included experiment 2 in our review.

  2. Intervention 4 (of experiment 2) trained irregular words and therefore we did not include this in our review or analysis.

  3. Contacted author (B Levy) on 26 September 2011 for:

    1. mean age (and SDs) of participants: did not know;

    2. number of males/females: did not know;

    3. inclusion criteria: did not know;

    4. details on the control group: same as the control group in experiment;

    5. length of training: depended on child's progress and speed of responding;

    6. training group size: one‐to‐one

  4. Since the rime, onset and phoneme training groups all trained phonics, we merged their results for the experimental data.

  5. There were 2 measures that tested reading accuracy: non‐words (onset non‐words and rime non‐words). We merged these 2 tests for a measure of reading accuracy: non‐words. Similarly, there were 2 measures testing reading accuracy: regular words (onset words and rime words). We merged these 2 tests for 1 measure of reading accuracy: regular words.

  6. There were 2 immediate post‐tests: the day after completion, and 1 week after completion. We used the first post‐test in this review.


Study start and end dates: not reported
Funding: "This research was supported by a grant to Betty Anne Levy from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation" (quote, p 386).
Declared/potential conflicts of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote from publication: "twenty‐five children were randomly assigned to each of the five training conditions" (p 378).
Quote from personal communication: "children were randomly assigned to conditions as they arrived for the study, with the intention to keep numbers per condition as equal as possible in each school at all times. The idea was to balance for time of year effects and conditions in schools. Otherwise, assignment per condition was random and controlled by the tester."
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 Low risk Quote from personal communication: "the teachers and parents knew the general purpose of the study but no details of manipulations, child assignments or individual child outcomes."
Comment: 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 Quote from personal communication: "the same testers scored all tests for both pre‐ and post‐tests. No blinding of testers was attempted since the experimenters were largely the testers."
Comment: study used objective tests of literacy‐related skills that are designed to avoid assessor bias.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Comment: no explicit information about attrition, but DF suggested all randomised participants were included in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Comment: data reported for all outcome measures outlined in methods; adequate detail for data to be included in analysis.
Other bias Low risk Comment: none apparent