Sight Word and Phonics Training in Children With Dyslexia

504996
research-article2013
JLDXXX10.1177/0022219413504996Journal of Learning DisabilitiesMcArthur et al.
Article
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Sight Word and Phonics Training in

2015, Vol. 48(4) 391–407
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Children With Dyslexia sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022219413504996
journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com
Genevieve McArthur, PhD1, Anne Castles, PhD1,

Saskia Kohnen, PhD1, Linda Larsen, BSc Hons1,
Kristy Jones, BSc Hons1, Thushara Anandakumar, BSc Hons1,
and Erin Banales, BSc Hons1
Abstract
The aims of this study were to (a) compare sight word training and phonics training in children with dyslexia, and (b)
determine if different orders of sight word and phonics training have different effects on the reading skills of children with
dyslexia. One group of children (n = 36) did 8 weeks of phonics training (reading via grapheme–phoneme correspondence
rules) and then 8 weeks of sight word training (reading irregular words as a whole), one group did the reverse (n = 36), and
one group did phonics and sight word training simultaneously for two 8-week periods (n = 32). We measured the effects
of phonics and sight word training on sight word reading (trained irregular word reading accuracy, untrained irregular
word reading accuracy), phonics reading (nonword reading accuracy, nonword reading fluency), and general reading (word
reading fluency, reading comprehension). Sight word training led to significant gains in sight word reading measures that
were larger than gains made from phonics training, phonics training led to statistically significant gains in a phonics reading
measure that were larger than gains made from sight word training, and both types of training led to significant gains in
general reading that were similar in size. Training phonics before sight words had a slight advantage over the reverse order.
We discuss the clinical implications of these findings for improving the treatment and assessment of children with dyslexia.
Keywords
dyslexia, treatment, sight word training, phonics, reading
Around 5% of children find it unusually difficult to learn to and significant effect on reading accuracy for “nonwords”
read even though they have had normal reading instruction, (i.e., nonsense words that follow the GPC rules; Cohen’s d =
they have normal intelligence, and they have no known neu- 0.52) and “regular words” (i.e., real words that follow the
rological or psychological problems. This condition—which GPC rules; Cohen’s d = 0.49), and a small but significant
is often called developmental dyslexia (Hulme & Snowling, effect on reading mixed words (i.e., reading both regular
2009)—not only affects children’s academic achievements words and “irregular” words, the latter being words that
but also increases their risk for anxiety, depression, conduct contain graphemes that “break” the GPC rules, such as
disorder, and hyperactivity (Carroll, Maughan, Goodman, & YACHT). A more recent review by Suggate (2010) included
Meltzer, 2005). Thus, we need to discover how to treat poor 85 studies that tested programs that trained phonics, pho-
reading as effectively as possible. neme awareness, and comprehension. Unfortunately, it did
To date, most treatment trials done with children with not report on the effect of phonics training in poor readers
dyslexia have looked at the effects of “phonics” reading per se. However, it did report that the mean effect on reading
programs. These programs teach children to learn to read across all reading programs was moderate (Cohen’s d =
using the grapheme–phoneme correspondence (GPC) rules 0.51) for poor readers. Very recently, a Cochrane Review
(i.e., “letter–sound rules”). The outcomes of these studies (McArthur et al., 2012) identified 11 studies that looked at
have been systematically reviewed 3 times in the past
decade. The National Reading Panel review considered 38 1
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
studies that tested a variety of phonics programs that may
Corresponding Author:
be used in schools (e.g., synthetic, analytic, analogy) with
Genevieve McArthur, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its
or without simultaneously training in other skills (e.g., pho- Disorders, Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University,
neme awareness or learning irregular words by sight). In Sydney, NSW, 2109 Australia.
children with poor reading, phonics training had a moderate E-mail: genevieve.mcarthur@mq.edu.au
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

392 Journal of Learning Disabilities 48(4)
“Sight word” or “lexical” See word “Phonics” or “non-

reading route CAT lexical” reading route
1.Letter identification
C A T
3.Orthographic lexicon
CAT
4.Semantic knowledge 2.GPC knowledge

furry pet “k” “a” “t”
5.Phonological lexicon
‘kat’
6.Phonological output
“kat”
Say word
“kat”
Figure 1. A typical dual route model of reading (Coltheart et al., 2001).
the effect of “pure” phonics training programs in English- Once a word has been read a number of times via the
speaking poor readers (i.e., programs that taught reading via phonics route, a memory is formed of the whole word (i.e.,
the GPC rules alone with little or no simultaneous training the combination and order of the letters in the word; e.g.,
in any other skills). It reported a large and significant effect SHIP; see Box 3 in Figure 1—the orthographic lexicon
of phonics on nonword reading accuracy (d = 0.76), a mod- component). This memory activates the meaning of that
erate and significant effect on word reading accuracy (d = word (i.e., a boat; see Box 4—the semantic knowledge
0.51), and a small to moderate significant effect on GPC component), the spoken representation of that word (“ship”;
rule knowledge (d = 0.35). see Box 5—the phonological lexicon component), and the
How might phonics training improve word reading in spoken output of that word (“ship”; see Box 6—the phono-
children? When children first see the word CAT, they have to logical output component which is also apart of the phonics
(a) identify the letters, (b) translate each grapheme (i.e., a let- route). Together, these components form the “sight word”
ter or letter cluster) into a speech sound (i.e., a phoneme; e.g., or “lexical” reading route of the dual route model of reading
“k” “a” “t”), and (c) blend these phonemes together into a in Figure 1. It is important to note that the proposed “knock-
word that is spoken aloud (e.g., “kat”). Boxes 1 (letter identi- on” effect of the letter–sound route onto the sight word
fication), 2 (GPC knowledge), and 6 (phonological output) in route—via the development of orthographic representations
Figure 1 represent these three “components” of phonics read- that link to semantic representations and phonological rep-
ing. Collectively, these three components represent the “pho- resentations in dual route models—is not unique to dual
nics” or “nonlexical” reading route in a typical dual route route models. Most major models and theories of reading
model of reading (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & acquisition—including triangle models and the self-teach-
Ziegler, 2001). Note that this is just one of a number of reading hypothesis—posit that learning words using letter–
ing models used in dyslexia research, which all incorporate sound rules helps develop whole-word written
some or all of the reading components shown in Figure 1 representations of those words, which are linked to the
(e.g., see also Ellis & Young, 1988; Perry, Ziegler, & Zorzi, meaning and spoken representations of those words (Nation,
2007; Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996). 2009; Share, 1995). Thus, many (if not most) reading

McArthur et al. 393
researchers agree that phonics reading plays an important predicted that phonics training would lead to statistically
role in the development of sight word reading. significant gains in measures of the phonics route, and that
Sight word reading is particularly important for reading these gains would be larger than those made from sight word
English because one third of written words in English con- training. Fourth, regarding word reading fluency and read-
tain letters that do not follow the letter–sound rules (i.e., ing comprehension, we predicted that sight word training
they are “irregular”; Coltheart et al., 2001). For example, and phonics training would have similar-sized effects on
ACH in YACHT sounds like “o” and not “a” “ch.” Most both of these measures since the irregular words in each test
irregular words can be partially read with the GPC rules should benefit from sight word training and the regular
since some of the letters are regular (e.g., Y and T in YACHT words should benefit from phonics training.
follow the letter–sound rules “y” and “t”). However, to be The second aim of the current study was to determine if
learned accurately, irregular words like YACHT must be the order of phonics and sight word training is important for
memorized as a whole word (i.e., read via the sight word treating children with dyslexia. There is a widely held, yet
reading route). not uncontested (Connor et al., 2009; Wyse & Goswami,
Given the importance of sight word reading in English, 2008), belief that phonics reading is the foundation of read-
and given that many children with dyslexia have problems ing and so should precede other types of instruction.
with sight word reading as well as phonics reading According to this view, teaching reading via the GPC rules
(Brunsdon, Hannan, Nickels, & Coltheart, 2002; Castles (i.e., phonics reading) should empower children to fully
& Coltheart, 1993; Goulandris & Snowling, 1991), it is decipher or “decode” regular words or names that they have
surprising that no one has tested the specific effect of sight never encountered before (e.g., GOBLET, PROFESSOR
word training in a group of children with dyslexia. Thus, MCGONAGALL), and partially decode irregular words
the first aim of this study was to compare the effect of that they have never encountered before (e.g., FRIEND).
sight word training to phonics training in children with Repeatedly decoding a word—either fully or partially—
dyslexia. We measured gains in the sight word route using will create full or partial representations of the whole word
trained and untrained irregular words (i.e., words that (see the orthographic lexicon in Figure 1, as well as Rose,
comprise letters that do not follow the common letter– 2006; Share, 1995). This will increase the ability to recog-
sound rules, such as YACHT), which can be correctly read nize that word by sight. According to this view, training
by the sight word route but not the phonics route. We mea- phonics reading before sight word reading should lead to
sured gains in the phonics route using “nonwords” (i.e., greater gains in sight word reading than vice versa. We
nonsense words that comprise letters that all follow the tested this prediction by comparing groups of children with
common GPC rules, such as GRENTY). Since nonwords dyslexia who did (a) phonics training followed by sight
do not have representations in the sight word route (i.e., in word training (phonics + sight word group) and (b) sight
the orthographic lexicon), they can be read correctly only word training followed by phonics training (sight word +
via the phonics route. We also included two general mea- phonics group). We also included a third group who did
sures of reading that included both irregular and regular phonics training and sight word training simultaneously
words (i.e., a word reading fluency test and a reading com- (mixed + mixed group) because, despite the widespread
prehension test). belief that phonics should be trained before sight word read-
We made four predictions about the outcomes relating to ing, many teachers, clinicians, and reading programs train
our first aim. First, regarding trained irregular words, from phonics reading and sight word reading simultaneously.
the few case studies that have trained irregular word reading Thus, we wished to compare the efficacy of mixed + mixed
in children with dyslexia (e.g., Broom & Doctor, 1995; training to phonics + sight word training and sight word +
Brunsdon et al., 2002; Rowse & Wilshire, 2007), we pre- phonics training.
dicted that sight word training would lead to a statistically In sum, this study had two aims, which were to (a) com-
significant gain in reading accuracy for trained irregular pare sight word training and phonics training in children
words, and that this gain would be larger than that made with dyslexia and (b) determine if different orders of sight
from phonics training. Second, regarding untrained irregular word training and phonics training have different effects on
words, we predicted from the self-teaching hypothesis that the reading skills of children with dyslexia. We predicted
phonics training would lead to gains in reading untrained that (a) sight word training would lead to statistically sig-
words (Share, 1995; Wang, Castles, Nickels, & Nation, nificant gains in sight word reading measures (trained and
2011). It was not possible to predict the effect of sight word untrained irregular words) that would be larger than gains
training on untrained irregular words since the aforemen- made from phonics training, (b) phonics training would
tioned case studies produced mixed findings on this issue, lead to statistically significant gains in phonics reading
and because there is no well-specified theory of how gener- measures (nonword reading accuracy and fluency) that
alization may occur as a result of sight word training. Third, would be larger than gains made from sight word training,
regarding nonword reading accuracy and fluency, we and (c) phonics training and sight word training would have

Phonics+sight word (N = 36) Sight word+phonics (N=36) Mixed+mixed (N = 32)
Test 1 Screening measures Screening measures Screening measures

2-3 hours Outcome measures Outcome measures Outcome measures
No training
No training No training No training
8 weeks
Test 2
Outcome measures Outcome measures Outcome measures
2-3 hours
Train 1
Phonics Sight words Mixed
8 weeks
Test 3
2-3 hours
Train 2
Sight words Phonics Mixed
8 weeks
Test 4
2-3 hours
Figure 2. Testing and training phases for the three training groups.
similar-sized significant effects on measures of reading that (and then Test 3) and then the same again for another
taxed both phonics and sight word reading (word reading 8 weeks (and then Test 4).
fluency and reading comprehension).
Participants
Method Children were recruited from schools, from clinics, and via
The Macquarie University Human Ethics committee newspaper advertisements. They were included in the study
approved the methods outlined below. All children and their if they (a) were aged from 7 to 12, (b) scored below the
parents gave informed written or verbal consent to partici- average range for their age (i.e., had a z score lower than –1)
pate in the research. Below we outline the method accord- on the Castles and Coltheart 2 (CC2) irregular-word read-
ing to CONSORT 2010 guidelines (Shulz, Altman, & ing test or nonword reading test (Castles et al., 2009), (c)
Moher, 2010). had no history of neurological or sensory impairment as
indicated on a background questionnaire, and (d) used
English as their primary language at school and at home
Trial Design (see the screening measures in Table 1). It is noteworthy
Figure 2 illustrates the order of testing sessions and training that although all children were tested for their nonverbal
phases in this study. At Test 1, children completed the intelligence, children with nonverbal IQ scores below the
screening and outcome measures (see Table 1). After 8 average range were not excluded from the study since intel-
weeks of no training, they returned to do the outcome mea- ligence does not appear to predict reading ability or response
sures (Test 2). This “no-training” period indexed the degree to treatment (Gresham & Vellutino, 2010; Siegel, 1989).
to which children made gains on the outcome measures due The children were given four screening tests. We tested
to factors beyond the training involved in this study, such as nonword reading and irregular-word reading accuracy with
test–retest effects, familiarity with the testing environment, the CC2 reading test (Castles & Coltheart, 1993; Castles
regression to the mean, or growth in reading due to normal et al., 2009). The test comprises 40 nonwords (e.g.,
schooling (see the discussion for why we controlled for GRENTY), 40 irregular words (e.g., YACHT), and 40 regu-
gains during a no-training period within groups rather than lar words (e.g., MARSH). The type of item was presented
between groups). The phonics + sight word group then did in a random fixed order (e.g., nonword, irregular word,
8 weeks of phonics training (and then Test 3) followed by 8 regular word, regular word, nonword, irregular word) with
weeks of sight word training (and then Test 4). The sight items within each type presented in order of difficulty. Each
words + phonics group did the same except the order of item was printed on a separate card. Children were asked to
training was reversed. The mixed + mixed group did pho- read the item on each card until they made five errors in a
nics and sight word training on alternate days for 8 weeks row for any one type of item (e.g., irregular words). At this

McArthur et al. 395
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Screening and Outcome Measures.
Phonics + Sight Word Sight Word + Phonics Mixed + Mixed
M SD M SD M SD ANOVA
Screening
Age (years) 9.42 1.71 9.19 1.64 9.21 1.67 ns
Nonverbal IQ (s) 97.50 14.16 95.56 17.12 101.12 14.25 ns
CC2 irregular words (z) –1.31 0.67 –1.38 0.64 –1.26 0.58 ns
CC2 nonwords (z) –1.50 0.57 –1.27 0.54 –1.32 0.53 ns
CC2 regular words (z) –1.41 0.57 –1.29 0.59 –1.30 0.59 ns
Training time
Sight word training (sessions/40) 31.94 11.96 34.67 7.70 33.83 7.88 ns
Phonics training (sessions/40) 36.10 5.78 33.71 10.10 33.83 7.88 ns
Phonics training (mins/800–1,000) 821.16 330.03 679.89 360.96 738.96 265.64 ns
Test 1
Trained irregular accuracy (r) 11.17 7.77 10.97 8.09 11.16 8.07 ns
Untrained irregular accuracy (r) (s) 8.58 6.39 8.50 6.37 9.03 6.28 ns
Nonword reading accuracy (r) 7.06 6.35 9.08 6.49 8.31 7.29 ns
Nonword reading fluency (r) 11.67 9.24 13.08 6.95 14.66 11.19 ns
Nonword reading fluency (s) 81.11 8.76 85.36 7.91 86.09 8.55
Word reading fluency (r) 42.47 16.88 40.83 16.84 41.78 16.74 ns
Word reading fluency (s) 87.14 8.53 86.94 8.27 87.66 8.91
Reading comprehension (r) 14.25 8.37 13.75 8.20 14.59 7.89 ns
Test 2
Trained irregular accuracy (r) 12.22 8.00 12.28 7.99 12.44 8.22 na
Untrained irregular accuracy (r) (s) 9.67 6.46 9.81 6.79 10.44 6.02 na
Nonword reading accuracy (r) 8.33 5.50 9.25 6.47 9.19 6.83 na
Nonword reading fluency (r) 13.69 7.63 14.86 7.03 15.06 9.98 na
Word reading fluency (r) 46.44 16.26 44.08 18.12 42.91 16.37 na
Reading comprehension (r) 16.08 7.33 15.64 7.50 15.78 7.28 na
Test 3
Test 4
CC2 irregular words (z) –1.21 0.78 –1.19 0.73 –1.20 0.82 na
CC2 nonwords (z) –1.31 0.60 –1.06 0.71 –1.19 0.53 na
Note. CC2 = Castles and Coltheart 2 (Castles et al., 2009) reading tests; m = minutes; na = not applicable since group comparisons based on difference
scores (see Figure 4); ns = nonsignificant effect; r = raw score; s = standard score; z = z score.

point, the presentation of that type of item was stopped. the words aloud, and the child is required to click on the
Presentation of the other types of items continued until the correct word. They receive points for each correctly
child made five errors for each of the other types of items or “clicked” (i.e., identified) word. The parent noted any
they reached the end of the test. A child was given 10 s to words that the child failed to read in Dingo Bingo, and
read each word before being prompted to try the next word. added them to the incorrect pile. In the final 5 to 10 min of
Scores were z scores that had a mean of 0 and SD of 1. the session, the parent re-presented the child with the flash-
We measured nonverbal IQ with the Kaufman Brief cards in the incorrect pile. If a child got less than 2 incorrect
Intelligence Test–2 Matrices subtest (Kaufman & Kaufman, (i.e., 0 or 1 mistake), then they moved onto the next list the
2004). In each trial, children saw an incomplete picture next day (List 2). Otherwise they redid the same list in the
matrix and had to select the missing portion from six pos- next training session.
sible options. Scores were standardized with a mean of 100 It is noteworthy that the sight word training focused on
and an SD of 15. reading accuracy rather than fluency. It is also noteworthy
We used a questionnaire to determine if children had any that training was done at home with the support of both a
known problems with their hearing, vision, neurology, or parent and computer. We took this approach for clinical rea-
psychology, which could account for their reading problem. sons. An overarching goal of our research program is to
We also used this questionnaire to establish if the children increase the accessibility of reading training to children
used English as their primary language at both school and with dyslexia so we can help as many children as we can
home. regardless of location or economic situation. To achieve this
goal, we need to find ways to deliver training that is afford-
able and convenient as well as theoretically rigorous and
Interventions scientifically validated. The delivery of training via com-
Sight word training. Children were asked to do five sight- puter and a parent is convenient because it can be done at
word training sessions per week for 8 weeks. Parents home, avoiding the stress and effort involved in driving
recorded the number of sessions that they completed by through heavy traffic to attend the university five times per
placing a sticker on a calendar for each training session week for city children. It also allowed us to include children
completed. Each sticker was a gold medallion marked with in outer suburbs into the study since they only needed to
a $ sign. This indicated to the child that they had earned $1 drive to the university four times for test sessions. It is also
for that session. inexpensive since the training does not depend on the skills
Each training session, which was designed to take 30 min, of a trained reading specialist.
used one of 30 lists of 24 irregular words that increased in
difficulty both between and within lists. A word was consid- Phonics training. Children and parents were instructed to do
ered irregular if at least one grapheme in the word did not the phonics training at home for 30 min per day, 5 days per
correspond to its most frequent pronunciation. We did not week, for 8 weeks. All training was done on a computer for
train any irregular words that were in the untrained irregular the same clinical reasons outlined above. As for the sight
word measure, the word reading fluency measure, or the word training, children used tokens on a calendar to indi-
reading comprehension measure (see the Outcomes sec- cate how many 30-min sessions they completed. They
tion). Irregular words were used in training because these received $1 per session. In addition, the training software
words can be read correctly only via the sight word reading recorded the number of minutes the child spent at each
route, and so any improvements in reading after training level of the training. This time did not include time spent
irregular words should reflect changes in the sight word moving between levels or for the instructions provided by
reading route. the software. Thus, we expected the software to record 20
In the first 5 to 10 min of the first sight word training to 25 min per session, which was a total of 800 to 1,000
session, a parent tested their child’s ability to read the easi- min overall.
est list of 24 irregular words (List 1) by presenting each Like the sight word training, phonics training focused on
word on a flash card. Words that the child read correctly accuracy rather than fluency. The phonics training was a
were placed in a “correct pile.” Words that they read incor- modified version of the Lexia® Strategies for Older
rectly were corrected and were then placed in an “incorrect Students, which uses a wide variety of games and exercises
pile.” In the next 15 to 20 min of the session, the child to teach the pairing of written stimuli (i.e., letters, letter
played a computerized game called Dingo Bingo by clusters, syllables, morphemes, whole words, phrases, and
MacroWorks®, which was adjusted by Shane Davis (the sentences) to the spoken versions of those stimuli. For
CEO) to present the same list of irregular words that were example, in one exercise children are asked to pair together
used for the flash cards. In this game, a child is presented 9 syllables to create a complete word. In another exercise,
to 24 words with each written in one section of a grid (i.e., they are asked to find words within a grid of letters. And in
as in a bingo game). In each trial, the program “says” one of another exercise, they are asked to type a letter to complete

McArthur et al. 397
a word. The modifications—provided by the managing untrained irregular words by improving children’s ability to
director of Lexia® Learning Australia, John Dyson— use their GPC knowledge (see Component 2 in Figure 1) to
involved removing all exercises that included irregular sound out part of an irregular word (e.g., “y” “t” in YACHT)
words. We also removed exercises that presented sentences and then “guess” the word using their knowledge of spoken
and paragraphs of text. Thus, the program focused on train- words that might match (i.e., see the phonological lexicon
ing GPCs either alone, within parts of words (i.e., sylla- in Figure 1; Share, 1995). Sight word training might
bles), or within regular words. improve untrained irregular words by improving a child’s
access to partially learned written words in the orthographic
Mixed training. The mixed training was the same as the pho- lexicon (see component 3 in Figure 1; Brunsdon, Coltheart,
nics and sight word training except that each type of train- & Nickels, 2005).
ing was done on alternate days. So, on the first day the child
did phonics training, the second day sight word training, the Phonics reading. We tested the effect of the training pro-
third day phonics training, and so on. grams on two measures of the phonics reading route. Both
tests used nonwords as stimuli since nonwords can only be
read correctly by the phonics reading route. We tested non-
Outcomes word reading accuracy using 20 untrained nonwords printed
Since both sight word training and phonics training on flashcards. A child was asked to read each nonword
focused on improving word reading accuracy rather than aloud. All items were monosyllabic, comprised three or
fluency, the primary outcomes of this study were trained four letters (e.g., urk, clon), and translated to two, three or
and untrained irregular word reading accuracy (see the four phonemes. Half the items contained digraphs (e.g., th,
Sight Word Reading section below) and nonword reading ai, oo), and half single-letter correspondences (e.g., t, p, e).
accuracy (see the Phonics section below). We also mea- Scores were total correct out of 20.
sured word and nonword reading fluency and reading We indexed nonword reading fluency using the Test of
comprehension, which were secondary outcomes of the Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) Nonword subtest
study. (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999). This comprised 63
Although a number of our outcome measures had stan- increasingly difficult nonwords that can be read correctly
dard scores, we indexed training gains using raw scores using the GPC rules. The children were asked to read as
since these avoid problems arising when children shift from many nonwords as they could in 45 s. Scores were the total
the upper end of one age band in the pretraining session responses correct out of 63.
(which inflates their standardized score) to the lower end of
the next age band in the posttraining session (which deflates Both reading routes. We tested the output of both reading
their standardized score). Subtracting an inflated standard routes using two general measures of reading that included
score from a deflated standard score creates the impression both irregular and regular words. The TOWRE Sight Word
that training has impaired children’s ability even if the train- subtest (Torgesen et al., 1999), which measured word read-
ing had a positive effect. ing fluency, comprised 104 irregular (sight word route) and
regular words (sight word and phonics route) that increased
Sight word reading. We measured the accuracy of the sight in difficulty. Children were asked to read as many words as
word route by asking children to read aloud 60 irregular possible in 45 s. Scores were the total responses correct out
words that were presented on flashcards. Half of the words of 104.
were included in the sight word training program (“trained We tested reading comprehension using the Test of
irregular words”) and half were not (“untrained irregular Everyday Reading Comprehension (McArthur et al., 2013).
words”). Untrained irregular words were matched to the This included 13 “everyday” reading stimuli, such as a text
trained irregular words in terms of their written frequency, message, a medicine label, or a cafeteria menu. For each
length in letters, and relative irregularity (i.e., the propor- stimulus, children were asked two literal (i.e., not inferen-
tion of irregular GPCs in a word relative to the total number tial) questions based on the information in the text. Scores
of GPCs in that word). Scores were total correct trained were the total responses correct out of 26.
irregular words (out of 30) and total correct untrained irreg-
ular words (out of 30).
Sample Size
We measured accuracy of responses to trained irregular
words to get a direct measure of the effect of the sight word A flow diagram of the number of participants in each stage
training, which trained irregular words. We measured of the study is shown in Figure 3. At the end of the study,
responses to untrained irregular words to assess whether there were 36 children in the phonics + sight word group, 36
phonics or sight word training led to improvements beyond children in the sight word + phonics training group, and 32
trained irregular words. Specifically, phonics might improve children in the mixed + mixed training group.

Figure 3. A flow diagram of the participant numbers at each stage of the study.
Sequence Generation similar gains after 16 weeks of training, indicating that allo-
cation did not produce any group that was unusually respon-
For funding-related reasons, we had to complete all data sive or unresponsive to treatment. Third, for the exceptional
collection for this study in 2 years. This meant that we had outcome, the group difference was in the predicted direc-
to recruit children for the study from Month 1 to Month 18, tion, indicating that superior group performance was a
since the last child recruited into the study would take 6 result of a genuine experimental effect rather than a group
months to complete his or her training. For reasons beyond allocation effect. Fourth, this study was designed so that
our control, there was a 3-month delay in the development there could be no possible bias between allocation to inter-
of the sight word training. The only solution to this unex- vention and control groups since each individual partici-
pected problem was to divide the 18-month recruitment pated in both control and intervention periods, and any
period into three periods of time. We then allocated children gains in the control period were controlled for in the inter-
recruited in Months 1 to 6 to the phonics + sight word train- vention period statistically (i.e., we used a double-baseline
ing group, children recruited in Months 7 to 12 to the sight design that gauged the effect of no training in each and
word + phonics group, and children recruited in Months 13 every participant before they did training).
to 18 to the mixed + mixed group.
There is good evidence that this quasi-randomized allo-
cation procedure did not bias the outcomes of this study.
Allocation Concealment
First, the groups were very well matched prior to training Each recruitment period had a fixed start date and an end
(see Table 1). Second, for all bar one outcome, groups made date. Children were allocated to their group according to

McArthur et al. 399
when they were recruited for the study. Since children could dropped out of the no-training period (4.6%), 2 out of the
be allocated to only one group, it is highly unlikely that lack phonics training (4.6%), and 3 out of the sight word training
of allocation concealment introduced bias into the study. period (6.9%; final n = 36). Of the 44 children who started
in the sight word + phonics group, 2 dropped out in the no-
training period (4.5%), 2 out of the sight word training
Implementation
(4.5%), and 4 out of the phonics training (9.1%; final n =
The first author defined the three recruitment periods in this 36). Of the 54 who started in the mixed + mixed group, 8
study (i.e., the start and finish dates). The last four authors dropped out of the no-training period (14%), 8 out of the
enrolled participants into the study. These authors arranged first mixed training phase (4%), and 6 out of the second
the appropriate training, which depended on the fixed mixed training phase (11%). All participants withdrew from
recruitment period. All training was conducted by computer the training on their own accord for a variety of reasons
(phonics training) or by a combination of computer and a relating to a participant’s personal or family circumstances.
parent (sight word training). All instructions to parents were We did not exclude any participants that completed the
provided via documents (i.e., there was no one-on-one study from the analysis. Thus, the drop out rate in this study
training of parents). If parents were unclear about any was low, and the reason for drop out appeared to be
aspect of the training, they contacted one of the last four random.
authors for support. These authors all joined the study at
different points in time, and so varied in their support expe-
rience. Thus, parents in later stages of the study (i.e., sight
Baseline Data
word + phonics and mixed + mixed) did not necessarily Before analyzing training effects on outcome measures, it is
receive support from more experienced study authors than important to establish that training groups do not differ on
parents in the phonics + sight word group. screening or outcome measures prior to training. This
ensures that any improvements in outcome measures after
training are not due to regression to the mean effects (i.e.,
Blinding according to statistical probability, any person or group
Unlike drug trials, cognitive treatment trials find it difficult with an extreme score at one point in time is likely to have
to guarantee double blinding because the type of training a more moderate score at a second point in time even if
cannot be completely concealed from a volunteer. However, there is no actual change in their ability). We used a between
neither parents nor children were told their group alloca- groups ANOVA to compare the screening and outcome
tion, and it is highly unlikely that they had the expertise to measure scores of the three training groups prior to training
ascertain the type of training that they were receiving (i.e., (i.e., at Test 1). The relevant data are shown in Table 1. Prior
they were blind to group allocation). Furthermore, all chil- to training, there was no significant difference between the
dren received exactly the same type of training in this study. three groups on any screening or outcome measure.
The only difference was the order in which they did the
training. This would further obscure group allocation to Training Fidelity
children and their parents.
Regarding personnel, it is unethical and impractical to Before analyzing training effects on outcome measures, it is
hire and fire trained reading experts in long-term continu- also important to establish that training groups did not differ
ous studies to ensure that different testers are used before in the amount of training that they did with the sight word
and after training. Thus, we employed four casual testers to and phonics programs. As mentioned above, for the phonics
help two principal testers. With careful planning, we training, the computer recorded the number of minutes
ensured that no tester assessed the same child twice, and no spent at each level. For both the phonics training and the
tester was aware of the child’s group allocation (i.e., the sight word training, parents indicated how many sessions
tester was blind to group allocation). were done using $1 sticker tokens on a calendar. Note that
we could not record the exact number of minutes done for
the sight word training because (a) it was partly conducted
Results with a parent and (b) the computerized part of each session
was not programmed to record number of minutes Dingo
Participant Flow
Bingo played. However, each sight word training session
A flow diagram of the number of participants in each stage was carefully designed to take 30 min to match each pho-
of the study is shown in Figure 3. We screened 193 children. nics training session. Thus, each token roughly represented
43 children were excluded because they did not fit our cri- a 30-min session.
teria, and 9 withdrew before the first test session. Of the 43 It is noteworthy that although children were asked to do
children allocated to the phonics + sight word group, 2 five 30-min sessions for 8 weeks for each training program

(40 sessions in total), based on previous training studies, we However, work in the 1980s and 1990s established that this
expected that this request would prompt children to manage is not the case (Bonate, 2000). Difference scores have
4 sessions per week (32 sessions in total) given unexpected superior reliability when degree of improvement differs
illnesses, holidays, busy schedules, and the occasional “bad between trainees (Rogosa & Willett, 1983) and are more
day” (McArthur, Ellis, Atkinson, & Coltheart, 2008). Our appropriate than posttreatment means for quasi-randomized
expectation proved correct since children in each group trials (Cribbie & Jamieson, 2004).
reported 31 to 36 training sessions for each program. The The first mean and 95% CI for each group, labeled
amount of time (phonics training) and number of sessions T1T2, represents the shift in raw scores from Test 1 to
(sight word training) completed by each group are illus- Test 2. These two tests flanked an 8-week period of no
trated Table 1. There was no significant difference between training, and so any positive gain reflects an improvement
groups in the amount of training done for each type of due to factors beyond the training effects in this study. Any
training. T1T2 line that does not fall across the 0 line (i.e., the point
of no difference between raw scores at each test time) is
statistically significant (p ≤ .05). These are marked with an
Numbers Analyzed
asterisk.
The analyses included 36 children in the phonics + sight The second line for each group, labeled T1T3, reflects
word group, 36 children in sight word + phonics group, and the difference in raw scores on the test between Test 1
32 children in the mixed + mixed group. We analyzed the (before training) and Test 3 (after the first 8 weeks of train-
data of participants in the groups to which they were origi- ing). If this line does not cross the 0 line (i.e., no difference
nally allocated. We conducted an available case analysis on in raw scores between Test 1 and 3) then this means there
the data (i.e., based on participants with complete data) was a statistically significant increase in raw scores between
rather than an intention-to-treat analysis (ITT; i.e., based on tests (marked with an asterisk). For this significant increase
all allocated participants including those with missing data) to be considered a training effect, it had to be significantly
for three reasons. First, as mentioned above, missing data larger than gains made in the no-training period (i.e., T1T2;
were minimal and apparently random. Second, ITT pro- also marked with an asterisk). Any T1T3 line that repre-
vides not a true test of a treatment (i.e., as it was designed to sents a significant training effect is marked with two
be done) but rather the execution of the treatment in a par- asterisks.
ticular study (Peduzzi, Henderson, Hartigan, & Lavori, The third line for each group, labeled T1T4, is the differ-
2002). Third, ITT requires missing data to be imputed, but ence in raw scores between Test 1 (before training) and Test
there is no agreement about how this is best done. For 4 (after 16 weeks of training). If this line does not fall over
example, the most common method in randomized con- the zero line (marked with an asterisk), and if the raw differ-
trolled trials—last observation carried forward—has been ence score is significantly larger than the gains made over
criticized for numerous reasons (Lavori, 1992; Peduzzi the no-training period (T1T2; marked with an asterisk) then
et al., 2002). there is a effect of 16 weeks of training (i.e., marked with
two asterisks). For T1T2, T1T4, and T1T3, we have pro-
vided the Cohen’s d effect sizes calculated from the differ-
Outcomes
ence scores (i.e., mean group difference score/SD group
Figure 4 shows each group’s mean and 95% confidence difference score) for each effect underneath the asterisk
intervals (CIs) for gains in raw scores (i.e., difference marks (Howell, 2010). We used Cohen’s d effect sizes since
scores) for each outcome measure (i.e., trained irregular these are most commonly used in controlled trials and allow
word accuracy, untrained irregular word accuracy, non- for direct comparisons between studies that use different
word reading accuracy, nonword reading fluency, word outcome measures.
reading fluency, and reading comprehension) from Test 1 As well as testing if each type of training had an effect,
(pretraining) to Test 2 (after 8 weeks of no training; T1T2) we wanted to determine if there was a reliable difference
after 8 weeks of training (T1T3), and after 16 weeks of between the size of effect for the different types of training
training (T1T4; see Table 1 for mean raw scores from done over 8 weeks (i.e., phonics versus sight words versus
which these difference scores were calculated). A positive mixed). For each outcome, we used a between-group
difference score means that a child’s score was better in the ANCOVA (controlling for each group’s gains over the no-
latter test. The first three means and 95% CIs (i.e., vertical training period on that outcome measure) to compare T1T3
lines) in each graph belong to the phonics + sight word gains for the phonics + sight word, sight word + phonics,
group. The second three vertical lines relate to the sight and mixed + mixed groups. We also wanted to determine if
word + phonics group. The last three lines relate to the the different orders of training had different effects on each
mixed + mixed group. It is noteworthy that in the 1970s, it outcome. We tested this in two steps: We used (a) a
was claimed that difference scores had inferior reliability. between-groups ANCOVA (controlling for T1T2

McArthur et al. 401
Figure 4. Means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for groups’ gains in raw scores (i.e., difference scores) for each outcome
measure (i.e., trained irregular word accuracy, untrained irregular word accuracy, nonword reading accuracy, nonword reading
fluency, word reading fluency, and reading comprehension) from Test 1 (pretraining) to Test 2 (after 8 weeks of no training; T1T2)
and after 8 weeks of training (T1T3) and after 16 weeks of training (T1T40).
Note: A positive difference score means that a child’s score was better in the latter test. The first three means and 95% CIs (“lines”) in each graph
represent data for the phonics + sight word group. The second three lines relate to the sight word + phonics group. The last three lines relate to the
mixed + mixed group. Any line that does not fall across the 0 line (i.e., the point of no difference between raw scores at each test time) represents
a statistically significant gain (p ≤ .05), and is marked with an asterisk. Any such gain that is significantly larger than the T1T2 gain in the same group
represents a significant training effect. Such gains are marked with two asterisks.

no-training period gains) to compare T1T4 gains for each a significant effect of gain because T1T4 gains were larger
group and (b) a repeated measures group (phonics + sight than T1T3 gains, F(1, 100) = 5.09, p = .03. There was also
word, sight word + phonics, mixed + mixed) by gain a significant group by gain interaction, F(2, 100) = 6.10, p
(T1T3, T1T4) ANCOVA (controlling for T1T2 gains over < .01: All three groups made similar gains after the first 8
the no-training period). Below, we interpret the result for weeks of training regardless of training type, but in the sec-
each outcome measure in turn. ond 8 weeks of training, the groups that did sight word
training made much greater gains than the group that did
Trained irregular word accuracy. Eight weeks of phonics, phonics training. Of interest, the group that got half a “dose”
sight word, and mixed training had very large and signifi- of sight words in the last 8 weeks of training (i.e., mixed +
cant training effects on trained irregular word accuracy. mixed group) made smaller gains than the group who got a
Figure 4 reveals that the two groups that did sight word full dose (phonics + sight word group). Considered together,
training (sight word + phonics group and mixed + mixed these findings suggest that untrained irregular words
group) made larger gains than the group that did phonics respond similarly to 8 weeks of phonics and sight word
training. The between-group ANCOVA for the T1T3 data training, but benefit more when phonics precedes sight
showed that these group differences were statistically words than vice versa.
significant.
Sixteen weeks of phonics and sight word training had a Nonword reading accuracy. Eight weeks of phonics, sight
very large and significant training effect on trained irregular word, and mixed training had moderate to large training
word accuracy. The between-groups ANCOVA revealed no effects on nonword reading accuracy. Figure 4 reveals that
significant difference between the groups after 16 weeks of the groups that did phonics training in the first 8 weeks
training. The repeated measures ANCOVA revealed an (phonics + sight word group and mixed + mixed group)
effect of gain because the T1T4 gains were larger than T1T3 made larger gains than the group that did sight word train-
gains, F(1, 100) = 12.06, p < .01. There was also a signifi- ing. However, the between-groups ANCOVA for the T1T3
cant effect of group because the T1T3 and T1T4 gains data indicated that this difference was not significant.
(averaged) were larger in groups that did sight word train- Sixteen weeks of phonics and sight word training had a
ing before phonics training (i.e., the sight word + phonics significant and moderate to large training effect in each
group and the mixed + mixed group), F(2, 100) = 3.28, p = training group. The between-groups ANCOVA revealed no
.04. More interesting, there was a significant group by gain difference in the T1T4 gains of the three groups. The
interaction, F(2, 100) = 8.35, p < .01. This occurred because repeated measures ANCOVA revealed a significant main
the phonics + sight word group made smaller gains in their effect of gain because T1T4 gains were larger than T1T3
first 8 weeks of training (phonics) than the two groups that gains, F(1, 100) = 4.85, p = .04. There was also a significant
did sight word training, but then made much larger gains interaction between group and gain, F(2, 100) = 26.98, p =
than these groups when they did sight word training in the .02, because the group that trained with sight words in the
last 8 weeks. In fact, the phonics + sight word group effec- first 8 weeks of training made smaller T1T3 gains than the
tively “caught up” with the other two groups once they two groups that did phonics training. However, when this
received sight word training. Thus, sight word training group did phonics training in the second 8-week training
clearly had a larger effect than phonics training on trained period, they made far larger gains than the other two groups
irregular words regardless of order of training. who did sight word training.
Considered together, the outcomes suggest that phonics
Untrained irregular word accuracy. Eight weeks of phonics, training has a larger effect on nonword reading accuracy
sight word training, and mixed training had very large and than sight word training regardless of training order.
significant training effects on untrained irregular word However, this effect was not large enough to reach statisti-
reading accuracy. Figure 4 shows that the two groups that cal significance in samples of around 30 children with
did sight word training made slightly larger gains than the dyslexia.
group that did phonics training. However, the between-
group ANCOVA for the T1T3 data revealed that this differ- Nonword reading fluency. Eight weeks of phonics, sight
ence was not statistically significant. word, and mixed training had moderate to large training
Sixteen weeks of phonics, sight word, and mixed train- effects on nonword reading fluency in the phonics + sight
ing had significant and very large training effects on word group and mixed + mixed group but not the sight
untrained irregular word accuracy. The between-groups word + phonics group (i.e., this effect was large—0.8—but
ANCOVA showed that the group that did sight word train- not significantly larger than the gain made over the no-
ing before phonics training made smaller gains than the training period). Despite the absence of a true treatment
phonics + sight word group (p < .05) and mixed + mixed effect in the sight word + phonics group, Figure 4 suggests
group (p = .07) . The repeated measures ANCOVA revealed that the three groups made similar gains in the first 8 weeks

McArthur et al. 403
of training. This is supported by the between-group gain, or an interaction between the two. This suggests that
ANCOVA, which revealed no significant difference reading comprehension responds similarly to phonics train-
between the gains made by the children who did phonics ing, sight word training, and mixed training regardless of
training, sight word training, or mixed training. order of training.
Sixteen weeks of phonics and sight word training had a
significant and moderate to large training effect on nonword
Discussion
reading fluency in the phonics + sight word group and
mixed + mixed group but not the sight word + phonics The aims of this study were to (a) compare phonics training
group (i.e., again, the gains were not larger than those made and sight word training in children with dyslexia and
over the no-training period). The between-groups ANCOVA (b) determine if different orders of sight word and phonics
revealed no difference between the groups after 16 weeks of training have different effects in children with dyslexia. We
training. The repeated measures ANCOVA revealed no allocated 104 children with dyslexia to one of three train-
main effects of group or gain, or an interaction between the ing groups. One group was given 8 weeks of phonics
two. This suggests that nonword reading fluency responds training and then 8 weeks of sight word training. The sec-
similarly to phonics training, sight word training, and mixed ond group was given the reverse. The third group was
training regardless of order of training. given two 8-week phases of mixed training. We measured
the effects of training on the phonics reading route, the
Word reading fluency. Eight weeks of phonics training, sight sight word reading route, and both routes combined. Below
word training, and mixed training had large and significant we interpret the outcomes in relation to the aims and predic-
effects on word reading fluency. Figure 4 indicate that the tions of this study, and consider the implications of the out-
groups that did phonics training made slightly greater gains comes for theory and for clinical practice. We conclude
than the group who did sight word training. However, the with possible limitations of this study and ideas for future
between-group ANCOVA for the T1T3 data revealed no research.
difference between the training groups.
Sixteen weeks of phonics and sight word training had a
The Effect of Sight Word and Phonics Training
large and significant training effect on word reading flu-
ency. The between-groups ANCOVA revealed that there in Children With Dyslexia
was no significant difference between the groups that did The first aim of this study was to compare sight word train-
different orders of training. The repeated measures ing and phonics training in children with dyslexia. We pre-
ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of gain because dicted that (a) sight word training would lead to statistically
T1T4 gains were larger than T1T3 gains, F(1, 100) = 6.95, significant gains in sight word reading measures (trained
p = .01. There was also an interaction between gain and and untrained irregular words) that would be larger than
group, F(2, 100) = 3.71, p = .03. This reflected the fact that gains made from phonics training, (b) phonics training
the group that did sight word training in the first 8 weeks would lead to statistically significant gains in phonics read-
made slightly smaller gains than the two groups that did ing measures (nonword reading accuracy and fluency) that
phonics training, but then made larger gains than these two would be larger than gains made from sight word training,
groups when they did phonics training in the second 8-week and (c) phonics training and sight word training would have
training period. Considered together, these outcomes sug- significant effects on measures of reading that taxed both
gest that word reading fluency may respond slightly more to phonics and sight word reading (word reading fluency and
phonics training than sight word training. reading comprehension) that would be similar in size.
The outcomes of this study supported the first predic-
Reading comprehension. Eight weeks of phonics training, tion. Sight word training had a significant effect on trained
sight word training, and mixed training had large and sig- and untrained irregular word reading, and in the case of
nificant effects on reading comprehension. Figure 4 sug- trained irregular words, this effect was larger than the effect
gests that the three training groups made similar gains in the of phonics training. However, this was not the case for
first 8 weeks of training. This is supported by the between- untrained irregular words, which improved significantly
group ANCOVA for the T1T3 data, which revealed no dif- from both sight word training and phonics training. This
ference between the groups that did different types of finding is interesting for at least two reasons. First, it indi-
training. cates that phonics knowledge can help children learn irreg-
Sixteen weeks of phonics and sight word training had a ular words. As outlined above, the generalization from
large and significant training effect on reading comprehen- phonics training to untrained irregular words may be driven
sion. The between-groups ANCOVA revealed no difference by improvements in children’s ability to use GPC knowl-
between the groups after 16 weeks of training. The repeated edge to sound out parts of an irregular word, which allows
measures ANCOVA revealed no main effects of group or them to guess the whole word from the spoken word

representations that they have in their phonological lexicon. phonics + sight word group) would lead to greater gains in
The generalization from trained irregular words to untrained accuracy of regular and irregular word reading than training
irregular words may result from improvements in children’s sight words and then phonics (i.e., the sight word + phonics
access to partially learned written words in the orthographic group). The results showed that training order had a signifi-
lexicon (Brunsdon et al., 2005). cant effect on untrained irregular word accuracy test. This
The outcomes of this study also supported the second was in the predicted direction since the groups that did pho-
prediction. Phonics training had a significant effect on non- nics before sight word training made significantly greater
word reading accuracy and nonword reading fluency, and gains than the group who did sight word training and then
in the case of nonword reading accuracy, this effect was phonics training. It is noteworthy that although this group
larger—although not significantly so—than the effect of had poor phonics-related reading for their age (i.e., their
sight word training (see the Limitations section for why nonword reading was 1.5 SD below the age-mean), they
this effect may have failed to reach statistical significance). nevertheless did have some phonics-related knowledge
These results suggest that it is important to teach phonics (i.e., they did not score at 0 on the nonword reading accu-
explicitly to children with dyslexia because these children racy). Thus, although this study may represent typical order
appear to learn GPC rules more readily from phonics train- effects in 7- to 12-year-old children with dyslexia, it may
ing than from exposure to sight words (i.e., sight word underrepresent the strength of training phonics then sight
training). This is consistent with a wealth of studies sup- words in children who have little or no phonics skills (e.g.,
porting the role of phonics ability as a key foundation for beginning readers or children with severe phonological dys-
reading (see Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001, for a lexia. This idea is supported by the meta-analysis by
review). Suggate (2010) outlined in the discussion that reported that
The results of this study also supported the third predic- phonics training has a larger effect in younger than older
tion. Both sight word training and phonics training had sig- children in general. It is also noteworthy that the superior
nificant effects on word reading fluency and reading effect of training phonics then sight words on untrained
comprehension. The effect of each type of training was irregular words also provides some support for the idea that
similar in size for reading comprehension. The effect of phonics skills help children read unfamiliar words, even
phonics training was slightly larger than the effect of sight when those words are irregular (Share, 1995).
word training for word reading fluency, but this was not The widespread idea that phonics training should pre-
statistically significant. Overall, these findings support the cede sight word instruction makes no predictions about
prediction that both sight word training and phonics train- mixed training. We used this group as a “pragmatic” com-
ing trigger similar-sized gains in these tests since they parison group (the mixed + mixed group) since many teach-
include both irregular words (indexing gains in the sight ers and clinicians teach phonics and sight word reading at
word reading route) and regular words (indexing gains in the same time. For this reason, it would have been concern-
the phonics reading routes). ing to find that the mixed + mixed group made significantly
An unpredicted finding of this study was that sight word smaller gains than the phonics + sight word group and the
training, even when restricted to irregular words, can pro- sight word + phonics group. Fortunately, for all but one out-
duce some benefits to reading via the phonics reading route. come, the mixed + mixed group made similar gains as the
This is consistent with research by Fletcher-Flinn and col- phonics + sight word group and sight word + phonics group.
leagues suggesting that phonics rules can be deduced The exceptional outcome was trained irregular words, for
implicitly from exposure to sight words to some extent which the mixed + mixed group (and sight word + phonics
(Fletcher-Flinn & Thompson, 2000; Thompson, Fletcher- group) made significantly greater gains in their first 8 weeks
Flinn, & Cottrell, 1999). of training than the phonics + sight word group. Thus, there
appears no general disadvantage (or advantage) for training
Does the Order of Sight Word and Phonics phonics and sight word reading simultaneously in children
with dyslexia.
Training Matter?
The second aim of the current study was to determine if the
Clinical Implications
order of phonics and sight word training is important for
treating children with dyslexia. This aim addressed the The results of this study—the first to test both sight word
widespread view that teaching children to read via the GPC training and phonics in children with dyslexia—provide at
rules (i.e., phonics reading) should allow them to develop least three insights into improving the treatment of children
whole-word orthographic representations, which should with dyslexia. First, this study revealed that training both
allow them to fully decode unfamiliar regular words and sight word reading and phonics reading has significant and
partially decode unfamiliar irregular words. Thus, we pre- large training effects on the reading skills of children with
dicted that training phonics before sight words (i.e., the dyslexia (mean Cohen’s d = 1.04). It is important to note

McArthur et al. 405
that these large effects resulted from modest, yet consistent, comprehension). Thus, we found no evidence that training
changes in children’s raw scores. For example, from T1 to children with irregular words harms their ability to read
T4, mean scores increased by around 7 for word reading with the letter–sound rules.
fluency, and by around 4 on reading comprehension, with
relatively little variance for this heterogeneous population
Limitations
of children (around 3–6 scores). These findings match those
of the few previous studies that have tested the effect of a There are three potential limitations of this study. The first
“pure” phonics program in children with dyslexia using relates to our use of trainee’s own gains from Test 1 to test
outcome measures with similar scales to ours. Ford (2009), 2 to index gains made over the no-training period (i.e.,
Hurford et al. (1994), and Lovett, Steinbach, and Frijters within-subjects control). An alternative approach would
(2000) found respective effect sizes (ESs) of 0.37, 0.46, and have been to test a group of children with dyslexia at Tests
0.71 for nonword reading accuracy (we found 0.5), which 1, 2, 3, and 4 without giving them any training (i.e., between-
corresponded to score gains of 2.12, 5.22, and 4.77 (we subjects control). We decided against this because between-
found 2.75). Similarly, for nonword reading fluency, Ford subjects control data are (a) not as rigorous as within-subjects
(2009) found an ES of 0.38 (we found 0.6), which corre- control data because they are collected from different chil-
sponded to a score gain of 5.89 (we found 5.89). Two of dren who may experience different (e.g., smaller) effects
these three studies (Ford, 2009; Hurford, 1994) presented across a no-training period; (b) ethically questionable since
their pure phonics training via computer for up to 2 hr per they necessitate a delay in children’s treatment by 6 months
week (as did we), and two studies trained children on pho- during a formative period in their reading, schooling, and
nics for less than 3 months (as did we; Ford, 2009; Lovett, self-esteem; and (c) practically problematic because fami-
2000). Considered together, these studies, albeit limited in lies are much less likely to volunteer for a study where there
number so far, suggest that relatively pure phonics training is a high chance (1 in 3) that their child may be placed in an
delivered via computer for up to 2 hr per week for less than untrained control group. It is noteworthy that our use of
3 months has moderate to large effects on various reading within-subjects no-training control data is a conservative
skills, which reflect small yet reliable gains in children with approach since practice effects on tests of language, read-
dyslexia. In terms of clinical practice, these findings sup- ing, and general cognition (e.g., attention, memory, reaction
port the use of computer-based reading training for children time) tend to asymptote after a second test session (Bartels,
with dyslexia. In an ideal world, this training would be used Wegrzyn, Wiedl, Ackermann, & Ehrenreich, 2010; Collie,
as “homework” to complement one-on-one sessions with a Maruff, Darby, & McStephen, 2003; Kohnen, Nickels, &
therapist. However, in the real world, where one-on-one Coltheart, 2010). However, it is also noteworthy that for
sessions are too expensive for many families, these findings ethical and practical reasons outlined above, this study did
indicate that computer-based reading training, which is typ- not use an untreated control group, which is the gold-stan-
ically much less expensive than therapy sessions, can be dard control for treatment trials. Given the promising results
used to promote small but reliable short-term gains in chil- of the current study, it may now be considered more ethical
dren’s reading. to test the reliability of the effects in this study in a random-
Second, the outcomes of this study support the idea that ized controlled trial that uses an untrained control group.
many children with dyslexia need more than just phonics A second potential limitation of this study is the size of
training. They also need to be trained how to read whole the treatment groups. It took our team 2 years to identify
words by sight. Sight word training is particularly important 141 children with dyslexia who fulfilled the research crite-
for irregular words, which this study revealed are most ria. A total of 37 children dropped out of the study. The
effectively learned via explicit training of the words them- remaining 104 children were divided into three groups of
selves rather than via phonics or other sight words. It is 36, 36, and 32 children. Although these sample sizes had
noteworthy that LiteracyPlanet (www.literacyplanet.com) power enough to allow the moderate to very large within-
has now integrated the lists of irregular words that we group effects to reach statistical significance, they may not
developed for this study into their bank of exercises (see have been large enough to allow potential training order and
More Sight Words under Sight Words module). type effects to reach statistical significance. For example, it
Third, contrary to the beliefs of some reading profes- can be seen in Figure 4 that the groups that first did phonics
sionals, training children to read irregular words will not (phonics + sight word group and mixed + mixed group)
impair their ability to read via the letter–sound rules. made more rapid gains in nonword reading accuracy than
Children with dyslexia who did sight training (i.e., with the group who did sight word training (sight word + phonics
irregular words) in this study did not regress on the tests of group). However, the latter group made impressive gains
phonics reading (i.e., nonword reading accuracy and the once they later did phonics training. This trend makes sense
nonword reading fluency) or tests of both phonics and sight theoretically, but it was not statistically significant. Thus, a
word reading (i.e., word reading fluency and reading study with greater statistical power (i.e., more participants)

may reveal that some of our theoretically sensible, yet non- Bonate, P. L. (2000) Analysis of pretest-posttest designs. Boca
significant, trends are in fact statistically significant. Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.
A third potential limitation of this study was its use of a Broom, Y. M., & Doctor, E. A. (1995). Developmental surface
quasi-randomized allocation procedure, which resulted dyslexia: A case study of the efficacy of a remediation pro-
gramme. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 69–110.
from an unanticipated delay in the development of the sight
Brunsdon, R., Coltheart, M., & Nickels, L. (2005). Treatment of
word program that was beyond our control. For reasons out-
irregular word spelling in developmental surface dysgraphia.
lined above, there was no evidence that this allocation pro- Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 213–251.
cedure biased the outcomes of this study. However, in future Brunsdon, R., Hannan, T., Nickels, L., & Coltheart, M. (2002).
studies, we will use minimization or random allocation to Successful treatment of sublexical reading deficits in a
allocate children to treatment groups. child with dyslexia of the mixed type. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 12, 199–229.
Carroll, J. M., Maughan, B., Goodman, R., & Meltzer, H. (2005).
Summary Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: Evidence for
In sum, the outcomes of this study suggest that 16 weeks of comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,
phonics and sight word training has large or very large effects 524–532.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental
on the phonics and sight word reading of children with dys-
dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149–180.
lexia. Furthermore, 8 weeks of phonics, sight word, or mixed
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Larsen, L., Jones, P., Saunders, S.,
training has moderate to very large effects in these children. & McArthur, G. (2009). Assessing the basic components of
Of particular interest, training phonics reading before sight reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new
word reading appears to have a larger effect on reading norms. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 14, 67–88.
untrained irregular words than the reverse order of training. Collie, A., Maruff, P., Darby, D., & McStephen, M. (2003). The
These findings represent an advance in treatment of dyslexia effects of practice on the cognitive test performance of neu-
since mean effect in this study was larger (Cohen’s d = 1.04) rologically normal individuals assessed at brief test–retest
than the mean small to moderate effect found by previous intervals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
studies. This superior effect size supports the idea that chil- Society, 9, 419–428.
dren with dyslexia need treatment for sight word reading and Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J.
(2001). A dual route cascaded model of visual word recogni-
phonics reading, and not just phonics reading alone.
tion and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
Connor, C., Piasta, S., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider,
Acknowledgments
C., Crowe, E., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing
We would like to thank all the children and parents who donated student instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction
their time and effort to this research. We would like to thank Max interactions on first graders’ literacy development. Child
Coltheart for his guidance on many issues related to this article. Development, 80, 77–100.
We would like to thank Shane Davis (MacroWorks and Cribbie, R. A., & Jamieson, J. (2004). Decreases in post-
LiteracyPlanet) and John Dyson (Lexia) for modifying their train- test variance and the measurement of change. Methods of
ing programs for this trial. And we would like to thank our review- Psychological Research Online, 9, 37–55.
ers for their valuable contributions to the development of this Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001).
article. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read-
ing: Evidence from the national reading panel’s meta-analysis.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsy-
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this chology. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
article. Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Thompson, G. B. (2000). Learning to
read with underdeveloped phonemic awareness but lexical-
Funding ized phonological recoding: A case study of a 3-year-old.
Cognition, 74, 177–208.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
Ford, C. (2009). The effect of the backward-chaining method of
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
decoding with computer-assisted instruction on the reading
research was funded by NHMRC Project 488518 and ARC
skills of struggling adolescent readers (Unpublished thesis).
DP0879556.
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
Goulandris, N. K., & Snowling, M. (1991). Visual memory defi-
References cits: A plausible cause of developmental dyslexia? Evidence
Bartels, C., Wegrzyn, M., Wiedl, A., Ackermann, V., & from a single case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 8,
Ehrenreich, H. (2010). Practice effects in healthy adults: A 127–154.
longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. Gresham, F. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2010). What is the role of
BMC Neuroscience, 11, 118–130. intelligence in the identification of specific learning disabilities?

McArthur et al. 407
Issues and clarifications. Learning Disabilities Research and Peduzzi, P., Henderson, W., Hartigan, P., & Lavori, P. (2002).
Practice, 25, 194–206. Analysis of randomized control trials. Epidemiologic Reviews,
Howell, D. (2010). Statistical methods of psychology. Belmont, 24, 26–38.
CA: Cengage Wadsworth. Perry, C., Ziegler, J., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental mod-
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2009). Developmental disorders eling in the development of computational theories: The CDP
of language, learning and cognition. London, UK: Wiley- model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315.
Blackwell. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson,
Hurford, D., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, S., K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word read-
Neal, J., . . . Huffman, D. (1994). Early identification and ing: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.
remediation of phonological processing deficits in first-grade Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.
children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Rogosa, D. R., & Willett, J. B. (1983). Demonstrating the reli-
Disabilities, 27, 647–659. ability of the difference score in the measurement of change.
Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 335–343.
Test–2. Circle Pines, MN: AGS. Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early read-
Kohnen, S., Nickels, L., & Coltheart, M. (2010). Skill generalisa- ing: Final report. Nottingham, UK: DfES.
tion in teaching spelling to children with learning difficulties. Rowse, H., & Wilshire, C. E. (2007). Comparison of phonological
Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15, 115–129. and whole word treatments for two contrasting cases of devel-
Lavori, P. (1992). Clinical trials in psychiatry: Should protocol opmental dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 817–842.
deviation censor patient data? Neuropsychopharmacology, 6, Share, D. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine
39–63. qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
Lovett, M., Steinbach, K., & Frijters, J. (2000). Remediating the Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning
core deficits of developmental reading disability: A double- disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478,
deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 486.
334–358. Suggate, S. P. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when:
McArthur, G., Jones, K., Anandakumar, T., Castles, A., Larsen, L., & Grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size.
Coltheart, M. (2013). A Test of Everyday Reading Comprehension Developmental Psychology, 46, 1556–1579.
(TERC). Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18, 35–85. Thompson, G., Fletcher-Flinn, C., & Cottrell, D. (1999). Learning
McArthur, G. M., Ellis, D., Atkinson, C., & Coltheart, M. (2008). correspondences between letters and phonemes without
Auditory processing deficits in children with reading and lan- explicit instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 21–50.
guage impairments: Can they (and should they) be treated? Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of Word
Cognition, 107, 946–977. Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
McArthur, G. M., Eve, P., Jones, K., Banales, E., Kohnen, S., Wang, H.-C., Castles, A., Nickels, L., & Nation, K. (2011).
Anandakumar, T., . . . Castles, A. (2012). Phonics training Context effects on orthographic learning of regular and irreg-
for English-speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of ular words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109,
Systematic Reviews, 12, CD009115. 39–57.
Nation, K. (2009). Form–meaning links in the development of Wyse, D., & Goswami, U. (2008). Synthetic phonics and the
visual word recognition. Philosophical Transcripts of the teaching of reading. British Educational Research Journal,
Royal Society of Biological Sciences, 364, 3665–3674. 34, 691–710.

Sight Word and Phonics Training in Children With Dyslexia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sight Word and Phonics Training in Children With Dyslexia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sight Word and Phonics Training in Children With Dyslexia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

504996

Sight Word and Phonics Training in

Genevieve McArthur, PhD1, Anne Castles, PhD1,

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

“Sight word” or “lexical” See word “Phonics” or “non-

4.Semantic knowledge 2.GPC knowledge

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Phonics+sight word (N = 36) Sight word+phonics (N=36) Mixed+mixed (N = 32)

Test 1 Screening measures Screening measures Screening measures

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Phonics + Sight Word Sight Word + Phonics Mixed + Mixed

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on June 21, 2015

You might also like