Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12614001111662
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
7/10/2014
Date registered
20/10/2014
Date last updated
20/10/2014
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Sight word and phonics training in children with poor reading
Query!
Scientific title
The effect of phonics and sight-word reading treatment on word reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension in children who are poor readers
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
285456
0
Nil
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Reading impairment
293229
0
Query!
Dyslexia
293230
0
Query!
Poor reading
293231
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Mental Health
293499
293499
0
0
Query!
Learning disabilities
Query!
Other
293500
293500
0
0
Query!
Research that is not of generic health relevance and not applicable to specific health categories listed above
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Phonics treatment trained letter recognition, parsing, letter-sound rules, and blending. Sight-word treatment trained children to associate written irregular words (i.e., those that do not follow the letter-sound rules) with the appropriate pronunciations. These skills were trained using software programs. Children trained at home for 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks.
There were two treatment groups. Group 1 did no treatment (8 weeks) followed by phonics training (8 weeks) followed by sight word training (8 weeks). Group 2 did the same except the order of training was reversed (i.e., they did sight word training before phonics training). There was one week between interventions. An extended washout period was not required.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
290390
0
Treatment: Other
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
This study used a double-baseline control. At the start of the study, each child in each group completed the outcomes measures (Time 1). After 8 weeks of *no* treatment, they redid the same tests (Time 2). We subtracted their scores at Time 1 from Time 2 to reveal "non-training" effects (e.g., test-retest effects, regression to the mean effects, maturation effects) on each test. In our analyses, we compared gains over each treatment periods to these non-training effects. Gains were only considered to be valid treatment effects if they were statistically significantly larger than the non-training effects.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
293318
0
Castles and Coltheart 2 Nonword Reading Test
Query!
Assessment method [1]
293318
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
293318
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
293319
0
Castles and Coltheart 2 Irregular-word Reading test
Query!
Assessment method [2]
293319
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
293319
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
293320
0
The Test of Everyday Reading Comprehension (TERC)
Query!
Assessment method [3]
293320
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
293320
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
310790
0
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) Sight Word Efficiency and TOWRE Phonetic Decoding Efficiency
Query!
Assessment method [1]
310790
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
310790
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
310792
0
Diagnostic Spelling Test for Nonwords (DiSTn)
Query!
Assessment method [2]
310792
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
310792
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
310793
0
Diagnostic Spelling Test for Irregular Words (DiSTi)
Query!
Assessment method [3]
310793
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
310793
0
At Time 1, Time 2 (after 8 weeks of no treatment; baseline control), Time 3 (after 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training), and at Time 4 (after a further 8 weeks of phonics training or sight word training).
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Children who have (1) English as their first language, (2) no problems with attention, hearing, sight, or behaviour, and (3) poor reading for their age (i.e., their ability to read nonwords or irregular words - as measured by the Castles and Coltheart 2 Reading Test - was below the average range (a z scores lower than -1) for their age).
Query!
Minimum age
7
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
12
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Poor attention, poor hearing, poor visual acuity, severe developmental delay
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Children with nonword or irregular word reading accuracy below the average range (i.e., below the 16th percentile) were allocated to Group 1 or 2 using minimisation (1:1; age, nonword reading accuracy, irregular word reading accuracy), which is considered by CONSORT to be equivalent to randomisation for trials with less than 100 participants.
Minimisation was executed by the lead research assistant using MinimPy. Group allocation was stored in a centralised database. Children were subsequently tested by another research assistant who was (1) unaware of group allocation, and (2) did not test the same child twice within the study. Children and their parents were unaware of allocation.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Children were allocated to Group 1 or 2 using minimisation (1:1; age, nonword reading accuracy, irregular word reading accuracy), which is considered by CONSORT to be equivalent to randomisation for trials with less than 100 participants.
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Crossover
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
To determine if there was a reliable difference between 8 weeks of phonics and sight word training, we used a between-group ANCOVA (controlling for each group’s corresponding non-training gains) to compare Time 1-Time 3 gains for each group. To determine if different orders of training had different effects on each outcome, we used a between-groups ANCOVA (controlling for non-training gains) to compare Time 1-Time 4 gains for each group.
Size of groups was determined based on outcomes of previous group studies of case studies suggesting that phonics training would have large effects on reading skills that depended heavily on phonics skills (d =0.8) and sight word training would have large effects on reading skills that depended on recognising whole words from memory (d = 0.8). With a power of 0.8, this equates to at least 26 children per group.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
2/01/2012
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
31/12/2013
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
52
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
8808
0
2000 - Sydney
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
8812
0
2100 - North Manly
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
8813
0
2200 - Bankstown
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [4]
8814
0
2150 - Parramatta
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [5]
8815
0
2050 - Camperdown
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
290064
0
Government body
Query!
Name [1]
290064
0
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Query!
Address [1]
290064
0
Level 5, 20 Allara Street
Canberra ACT 2601
Query!
Country [1]
290064
0
Australia
Query!
Funding source category [2]
290065
0
Government body
Query!
Name [2]
290065
0
Australia Research Council (ARC)
Query!
Address [2]
290065
0
Level 2, 11 Lancaster Place
Canberra Airport ACT 2609
AUSTRALIA
Query!
Country [2]
290065
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
University
Query!
Name
Macquarie University
Query!
Address
Department of Cognitive Science
Macquarie University NSW 2109
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
288754
0
Other
Query!
Name [1]
288754
0
ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders
Query!
Address [1]
288754
0
Macquarie University
NSW 2109
Query!
Country [1]
288754
0
Australia
Query!
Other collaborator category [1]
278179
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [1]
278179
0
Literacy Planet
Query!
Address [1]
278179
0
3/23 Main St
Varsity Lakes QLD 4227
Australia
Query!
Country [1]
278179
0
Australia
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
291769
0
Macquarie University Ethics Secretariat
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
291769
0
Ethics Secretariat Macquarie University NSW 2109
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
291769
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
291769
0
04/12/2007
Query!
Approval date [1]
291769
0
11/12/2007
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
291769
0
HE28SEP2007-R05411
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
This study tested potential treatments for Australian children who have severe problems learning to read. Some of poor readers find it hard to read via the letter-sound rules (phonics), some find it hard to read whole words by sight (sight-word reading), and many have both of these problems. In this study, one group of poor readers (N = 41) did 8 weeks of specific phonics training (i.e., reading via phonological decoding) and then 8 weeks of specific sight word training (i.e., reading via recognition of irregular words from memory). A second group of poor readers (N = 44) did the reverse order of training. The results showed that both specific sight word training and specific phonics training had large and significant valid treatment effects on trained irregular words, untrained irregular words, and word reading fluency; and that specific phonics training had an additional large and significant valid treatment effect on reading comprehension. These findings demonstrate the reliability of both phonics and sight word training in treating poor readers. This will aid Australia’s efforts to counteract the effects of poor reading in children by revealing how different treatments should be tailored to children with different types of reading impairment.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Power calculations prior to the study indicated that this study needed to recruit at least 26 participants per group. Our recruitment campaign was more successful than expected, and so we recruited 41 and 44 subjects per group (ie more than 26 per group).
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
51942
0
A/Prof Genevieve McArthur
Query!
Address
51942
0
Department of Cognitive Science
Macquarie University NSW 2109
Query!
Country
51942
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
51942
0
+61 2 9850 9162
Query!
Fax
51942
0
Query!
Email
51942
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
51943
0
Genevieve McArthur
Query!
Address
51943
0
Department of Cognitive Science
Macquarie University NSW 2109
Query!
Country
51943
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
51943
0
+61 2 9850 9162
Query!
Fax
51943
0
Query!
Email
51943
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
51944
0
Genevieve McArthur
Query!
Address
51944
0
Department of Cognitive Science
Macquarie University NSW 2109
Query!
Country
51944
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
51944
0
+61 2 9850 9162
Query!
Fax
51944
0
Query!
Email
51944
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF